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

[802SEC] Responses to Comments on 802.1 PARs

As a result of the comments on our PARs and 5 Criteria, we are making the following changes:

No changes to the PAR

- 1.a, "advance" will be changed to advanced.
- 4.a, we will add the registered trade mark symbol after Linux

- 5.2 delete half-duplex and in the last sentance of the first paragraph, change "i.e." to "e.g."
- 5.3 In the second paragraph, Qau and Qbb project suffixes are reversed (i.e Congestion Notification is 802.1Qau and Priority-based Flow Control is 802.1Qbb) so this will be corrected

- 4.c. "yield increase in reliably" is replaced by "yield an increase in reliability"
-5.a. Replace with
"Port Extenders are expected to cost less than existing bridges due to their relative simplicity (e.g. by simplifying the address table structure and eliminating many of the advanced functions typically found in the bridges that Port Extenders would replace).  This is supported by experience in existing deployments of this technology.  In addition, the resultant reduction in management complexity brings significant cost advantages.  The port extender creates many lower cost ports for every controlling bridge port further benefiting the overall system cost.  Existing experience also indicates no significant increase in the cost of the bridges that attach to the Port Extenders."
- 5.4 "will specify" is replaced by "specifies" and "will coexist" is replace by "coexist".

We received these comments from James Gilb 

Some words are cut off in the PDF
5.4 - "managemen" should be "management"
5.5 - "an" is cut off on first line of third paragraph.

Response: We have verified that the missing letters are in the submitted PARs. For some reason when we print the submitted PARs to PDF, the line wrap cuts off occasional characters. We will try to avoid that in the future.

 - 1.a. "advance" should be "advanced"?
 - 1.a. What is reflective relay?  It would help if this was defined
The term is clear to those familiar with the 802.1Q standard. The relay is defined by that standard as the portion of the bridge that forwards the packets. A reflective relay is one that can forward a packet to the port whence it came - this is not available in the current standard.
 - 4.a. Linux is a trademark, use Linux^TM perhaps?
Response: Okay, but it needs the registered trade mark symbol.

5.2 - Is full-duplex required for this protocol to work?  It seems strange that 802.1Q level standards care if a medium is full duplex or half duplex.  Note that many of the wireless standards are not full duplex.  I think this would be much more useful if it did not require full duplex.
Response: We find no objection to taking the term out. It was copied from other DCB PARs but we believe that the port extender PAR could be used over a non-full duplex link.
4.c. "yield increase in reliably" should be "yield an increase in reliability"
Response: Yes
5.a. "Port Extenders are expected to cost less than existing bridges.
This is both intuitive and supported by experience in existing deployments of this technology. In addition, the resultant reduction in management complexity brings significant cost advantages." Well, it isn't intuitive to me.  Please explain why port extenders lead to a cheaper system.  In particular, if it reduces the cost of one device, does it increase cost in another?  Is the cost reduction significant?
Response: We will reword to try to make the reasoning more clear.

2.1 Missing space in "NetworksAmendment"
Sorry, but that appears to be a bug in the tool and the fields it supplies - we can't make it go away. We will submit a bug report.

Joe Pelissier passed on the following comments on Qbh:
The project suffixes in 5.3 for Qau and Qbb are reversed and need to be corrected.
Response: agreed
In the last sentence of the first paragraph of 5.2, change "i.e." to "e.g." in order to not presume the solution.
Response: agreed
Comment on the submitted Qaz PAR change:
Wanted us to remove "will" two times in 5.4 (i.e. to write the Purpose as if the project was completed)
Response: since this is an amendment that doesn't carry the purpose in the body of the standard, this isn't important but we will do it.

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