Re: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
Jim, I acknowledge that we need to have agreement of the full working group
before we can accept a significant editorial change such as the one that
Anoop is suggesting, and incorporate it into our approved draft. However, I
would strongly encourage the creation and distribution of the proposed text
well in advance of the July meeting once we get some indication that this is
a beneficial change that is likely to get broad support. This way, we may
be able to get that text into the draft that comes out of the July meeting.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Mollenauer" <jmollenauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
>
> Anoop:
>
> I think you have the right idea. We should really have the frame
> definition and the explanation in the same place, not just for fairness,
> but for all the different packets. Then we could summarize them in an
> appendix for reference purposes.
>
> Before we can do this across the board, we should bring it up in the
> full working group.
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
> Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
>
> > I wanted to get an idea from the group for whether it makes
> > sense to describe the fairness frame format in the frame
> > formats clause (Clause 8) or the fairness clause (Clause 9).
> > Right now some parts are duplicated.
> >
> > For example, either Figure 9-1 or Figure 8-5 should be
> > removed since they are identical. There's also the
> > issue of where the description of the "Fairness Control
> > Header" and "Control Value" belong. The "Protection
> > Frame", for example, is not described in Clause 8.
> >
> > Maybe we can leave the basic fairness frame format
> > in Clause 8, but only describe the contents in
> > Clause 9.
> >
> > Any opinions?
> >
> > -Anoop
> > --
> > Anoop Ghanwani - Lantern Communications - 408-521-6707
>