Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Help on our scope work

Apparently, the red and italic print didn't even stand up to a single pass through the EC reflector so it's a good thing that you delimited the text. My comments are delimited with my initials, PAT.

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Help on our scope work


That being the case (at least in your opinion and mine) let's put the 
text forth here for consideration. If we can't agree on it as our scope 
statement (and I doubt that as a group we can) then we can at least pick 
it apart and see what elements of it we can agree upon.

So, I'll take an initial crack at this thus:
But first, an annotation style note. I have made my notes red/italic in 
style but I have my doubts that styling will survive multiple passes 
through the EC reflector. Therefore I have delimited my comments (in a 
manner extensible to other commenters) with
     {GOT> comment text }
IEEE 802 refers to a family of IEEE standards dealing with local area 
networks and metropolitan area networks.
/{GOT> Actually, I think the use of "geographic" terminology in our 
scope is now out of date. We now span the range from "Personal Areas" to 
networks that span the furthest reaches of our planet. Further, while 
not specifically addressed by the scope of any of our Working Groups, 
our technology is used or at least closely related to both satellite and 
deep space communication. We may be better served by concentrating our 
802 scope statement on what is discussed in the next paragraph. In the 
midst of all of this, I am not suggesting a change in any of the titles 
traditionally used for our groups.}
More specifically, the IEEE 802 standards are restricted to networks 
carrying variable-size packets.
/{GOT> I believe "variable size packets" is the key differentiator, 
especially when contrasted with circuit switched networks and cell networks}
/(By contrast, in cell-based networks data is transmitted in short, 
uniformly sized units called cells. Isochronous networks, where data is 
transmitted as a steady stream of octets, or groups of octets, at 
regular time intervals, are also out of the scope of this standard.)
/{GOT> I also agree with this statement. We don't do synchronous 
networks. We may use links that are synchronous at the physical layer 
but we do not carry that synchronicity across the upper layers for any 
of the MAC to MAC connectivity that we use to build our networks}/
{PAT> I like variable size packet networks and think they are the way to go, but strictly speaking, I don't think one can say that isochronous has been totally out of scope since 802 has one (unsuccessful) standard that supported an isochronous service in addition to variable best effort packets (802.9). Perhaps "focused on" rather than "restricted to". Or perhaps given the lack of success in 802.9, our scope going forward should keep us out of isochronous in the future.}

The number 802 was simply the next free number IEEE could assign, though 
"802" is sometimes associated with the date the first meeting was held 
--- February 1980.
/{GOT> We should conclusively resolve the facts behind this urban legend 
before everybody who knows anything about it is dead. The "next in 
sequence" theory should be relatively easy to resolve. Assuming we do 
not get torpedoed by the IEEE-SA records retention policy, we should be 
able to look back through the minutes of NESCOM and the SASB minutes of 
the day and see what the assignments were for the other projects at the 
{PAT> I don't particularly care if we resolve this - it seems a pretty harmless area for legends, but for grins I checked IEEE Xplore to see what occupied the adjacent numbers. It is pretty clear from that that the numbers have not always been given out in order. The first one before 802 is 800-1953 and I know that 488 had its first standard some time in the early 70's (though Xplore doesn't have that version).  The 700's only have 26 of the 100 numbers taken - either there are a lot of PARs that never produced a standard or never had their old withdrawn/archived standard imported into Explore or 802 wasn't the first empty number. However, most of the items in the 700's have their first document dated in the late 70's or in the 80's so it does look like 802 was used somewhat in sequence. 803 has an 803-1983 - faster than a typical power standard if they got their PAR in 1980. 804, 805, and 806 are all from the 1950's and 1960's and they and 800 are all related to aircraft so!
  it looks like at one time IEEE was using the 800's for that topic but they skipped 802.}

The services and protocols specified in IEEE 802 map to the lower two 
layers (Data Link and Physical) of the seven-layer OSI networking 
reference model. In fact, IEEE 802 splits the OSI Data Link Layer into 
two sub-layers named Logical Link Control (LLC) and Media Access Control 
(MAC) , so that the layers can be listed like this:
   - Data link layer
         -LLC Sublayer
         -MAC Sublayer
   - Physical layer
/{GOT> I agree with this statement. I think we can use it with minimal 
I would delete the text "In fact," from the 2nd sentence.
At the end of the 2nd sentence I suggest changing "so that the layers 
can be listed like this:" to "thus the layering can be described as:"}/
/{GOT> Then after the layering text description I would add something 
like "Individual Working Groups may have further sub-layering 
descriptions within each of their own standards.}/
{PAT> that looks pretty good with the changes you suggest. LLC is what is above the MAC at the Layer 2 end points - in the bridges, it is the relay with an increasing set of shim sublayers. I don't know if we should say something about that.}
Further comments welcome.

Best regards to all,


On 7/22/09 8:14 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> That's actually pretty accurate.
> Regards,
> Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [] On
> Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> Sent: 22 July 2009 04:51
> Subject: [802SEC] Help on our scope work
> Colleagues-
> Yeah, I know you can't depend on the accuracy of Wikipedia for anything
> but...
> Take a look at:
> Their description may be better than anything we came up with. It is at
> least worthy of consideration in our discussions
> Geoff
> ----------
> 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.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.