Re: [802SEC] 802.1 PAR comments
At 19:42 17/11/2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Thanks for the response. I was not suggesting that the project should
>include rate limiting controls. I just wanted you to know that there might
>be another project with a synergy with your project.
>I am still concerned that it may be difficult for people to find the
>information in 802.1Q. It is not intuitive that a standard titled "Virtual
>Bridged Local Area Networks" covers 2 port bridges with nothing virtual
>about them. Does 802.1 have ideas for what they will do to help the
>bewildered find the material?
The majority of people that will be looking for/at this standard will be
people interested in Provider Bridging; as the other standards we are
developing in that area (ad, ag, ...etc.) will also be part of the Q
standard, it will actually be the natural place for the audience for the
standard to look. Also, until such a time as the amendment is rolled into
the base standard, it will exist with its own title anyway, which will help.
These days, with increasing use of web searching to find stuff, this should
generally be less of an issue moving forward.
>[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 8:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.1 PAR comments
>At 21:25 15/11/2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >My personal comments.
> >802.1ai - We have normally skipped i and o in project numbering. i looks
> >too much like 1 and j depending on font. o looks too much like zero. I
> >think this still applies when we have two letter suffices.
>We have re-numbered this as P802.1ak.
> >Historical note - 10BASE-T was the first IEEE project to get to i and used
> >it. When they got to publishing it they decided in the future to not use i
> >and o.
> >802.3aj - Is there a cut and paste error? The PAR says it is Amendment
> >P802.1Q. From the description, it sounds like the project should be a new
> >standard. The project doesn't appear to have any relationship to VLANs.
>Significant aspects of this project will be the enchantment of the way the
>ISS is supported in clause 6 of 802.1Q. If this was not an amendment to
>802.1Q, it would therefore be necessary to start a separate companion
>project in order to amend 802.1Q anyway, or there would be duplication of
>material with attendant maintenance consequences.
> >Will this project define the management protocol ("it is remotely
>The scope indicates that the device will be manageable through at least one
>of its Ports. A MIB will be developed as part of the project that will
>allow the device to be managed. It is yet to be determined whether that MIB
>will reside within the device or populated through a low-level local protocol.
> >Will this project cover cases where the two sides are operating at
> >different speeds? One of the topics discussed in 802.3 congestion
> >management was to provide rate limiting in the 802.3 MAC directly
> >connected to a media converter minimize the memory requirement on media
> >converters. I don't think this affects your PAR but I wanted to let you
> >know there might be a related PAR.
>This project will not provide rate limiting controls, as that would imply
>queuing complexity and controls beyond the scope of this simple device.
>Such queuing should be in the attached systems; if it is not, operation may
>be less efficient due to triggering .3x Pause.
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
>list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.