Re: [FE] We need a warning
Pat,
I agree with your suggestion. We discussed one or two meetings ago and
omitted in the initial D0.1. I'll ask Glenn to add this note in the next
draft.
Kevin Daines
Chair, IEEE P802.3as
-----Original Message-----
From: **** IEEE 802.3 Frame Expansion Study Group ****
[mailto:STDS-802-3-FE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:05 AM
To: STDS-802-3-FE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [FE] We need a warning
While a final size hasn't been selected yet, it is likely that we will
choose a maxEnvelopeFrameSize that is too large to ensure compatablity
with some physical layer devices - especially 10 Mbit/s repeaters.
I think that is the right decision as such devices are unlikely to be
present in the application areas where the enveloped frames will be
used.
But, we need to include a warning statement in 3, or 4 (4.4 would be an
appropriate place with a reference from other spots) that indicates the
technology limitation.
Otherwise the Warning below the table in 4.4 implies that values in the
table will allow proper operation of the network. For shared 10 Mbit/s
networks that isn't true.
Regards,
Pat