Re: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
Tom, I second your instructions to the editors. Draft -.3 must come first.
Of course creation of proposed new text need not be restricted to the
editors. Any of us can do that as a suggested change to a stated problem.
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: "Tom Alexander" <Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Robert D. Love'" <rdlove@xxxxxxxxx>; "Jim Mollenauer"
<jmollenauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
> Colleagues,
>
> I have no particular problem with this suggested change. In fact, the
> removal of unnecessary duplication in the draft is always beneficial
> and should be encouraged. Consolidation of all the detailed description
> of the frame formats in one clause is probably a good idea, even if it
> does make the standard somewhat more tedious to read. An example of
> this practice may be found in Std 802.11; all of the frame formats and
> field descriptions are located in Clause 7 of this document and
> nowhere else.
>
> However, I would like to remind everyone that the FIRST priority of the
> editorial team is to generate Draft 0.3 according to the TF-authorized
> instructions from the interim. Extracurricular work such as the creation
> of new proposed text for building consensus should be taken on by the
> editors (assuming that they are willing to volunteer for this in the
> first place) only after Draft 0.3 is ready.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Tom Alexander
> Chief Editor, P802.17
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:58 AM
> To: Jim Mollenauer; Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> >