Foil for Discussion, IEEE 802.1 closing plenary,        Mick Seaman
                        7/11/96

Apparently preferred vLAN ID Field Format for those who might like
to close now.

            |type, as per alternative 4, Keith's presentation this AM
| Priority  |   |
|MSB     LSB|   |<-------------vLAN ID------------------------->|
|           |   |               |               |               |
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
| First Byte ...........        | Next Byte ..............      |
|                               |                               |
|MSB                         LSB|MSB                         LSB|

Retain flexibility to acquire some number of contiguous Ethertypes as
Required for further functions as needed.

No.     Time vs. Safety, who wants/needs to close now 
        (or in a few weeks)?

        Otherwise, is this a useful working hypothesis?

        Is it O.K. to put this in .1p/D4 (part?) and/or .1Q/D2 now to
        elicit comment or is this Hostile act?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
802.1Q --- More work                  IEEE802.1 closing plenary 96/7/11

-Packet Format - A vs B vs ??
        (Alan's presentation will help documentation (d96n165) )
-Priority Signalling - where? # of bits? ... etc.

-How many spanning trees ? one ? many ? 2-level

        -If many,how do vLANs map to S.T.? (1:1, N:1 )
        -default vLAN?
-Classification of implicitly tagged frames into vLANs:
        -port-based
        -MAC-based
                -DA
                -SA
                -DA & SA
        -port & MAC
        -Protocol - based (which ones?)
        -bitmask based
        -Other (Tea-leaves, ...)
-vLAN configuration (Names, IDs, Implicit/Explicit)
        -Static (M>O> >>>)
        -Dynamic (GARP. IMPLICIT, ...)
-How/Where do decision's get taken Re. tagging/untagging?
        -Static configuration
        -Dynamic - How?
-Relationships with P?
        -Any "unblocking" needed?