Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:08:53 -0400 To: Anil Rijsinghani 13-Jun-1996 1704 From: Himanshu Subject: RE: 802.1Q VLAN PAR backwards interoperability (802.5/FDDI coding issue) Cc: mjs@nsd.3com.com, p8021@hepnrc.hep.net I quite agree with Anil. As our understanding matures in this subject, it would be desirable to have the wordings of the PAR +not+ limit us in producing a better standard. A couple of other opinions on priority and VLAN Tagging issues. I believe there is value to consider priority signaling on per frame basis, outside of VLAN tagging. Three separate ethertypes; one for priority, one for VLAN tag and one for VLAN tag with priority is more desirable (if somebody has already mentioned this, I support his/her opinion). I also believe that there should be one uniform way of doing priority; regardless of address cast (uni or multi). I expressed this implicitely in my vote for 802.1p and I believe some other people may hold the same view. Himanshu [attached: P802.1-96/147 and -96/144 (see d96/d96n147.txt and d96/d96n144.txt)]