Re: [EFM-Copper] Regarding Comment #99/D1.732
Tom,
I have a few issues with comment #99.
You didn't supply the exact wording for the proposed changes to the draft
and, at this point in the process, comments should provide exact text
remedies.
P802.3ae didn't supply any test mode frames with the express purpose of
showing the CRC. These were jitter test patterns in the form of ethernet
frames that showed the CRC out of convenience, like was done in 36A.
P802.3z and P802.3ae used (graciously provided) space on the UNH-IOL
website to assemble test patterns for interoperability simulations. Many of
these patterns are still available today. I personally think this is the
preferred
approach as UNH is a well accepted forum for interoperability testing.
Regards,
Ben
Thomas Dineen wrote:
>
> Gentle People:
>
> A few days ago I submitted what is today known as Comment #99
> the text of which is included in its entirety at the bottom of this page.
>
> I am receiving an increasing number of questions from customers which
> indicate a certain amount of confusion about the implementation of CRC
> functions and issues of bit ordering in Clause 61.
>
> To assist in clearing up this confusion I am
> requesting that an informative annex be added to this
> clause which includes one to three compliant example
> frames with the associated correct CRC (FCS) value.
>
> These frames will serve as divining rod frames
> which an implementor can quickly use to verify the
> integrity of his CRC implementation and thus achieve
> early inter operability.
>
> As I detailed in the Suggested Remedy I am asking
> that one to three example frames be added in an Annex.
> Currently I have no plans to propose modifications or
> enhancements to the text of the clause.
>
>
> I would hope that like minded implements would
> voluntarily step forward with some example frames.
> It has been my experience that inclusion of example
> frames in this context greatly enhances early inter
> operability or prototype designs, and I believe that
> this early inter operability is in the best interest
> of the project and EFM Group as a whole.
>
> By the way there is substantial precedent for this
> activity from past projects such as 802.3ae where
> example test mode frames were provided in multiple
> annex.
>
> Thomas Dineen
>
> CommenterName: Thomas Dineen
> CommenterEmail: tdineen@ix.netcom.com
> CommenterPhone: (408) 956-0539
> CommenterCellPhone: (408) 838-3376
> CommenterCompany: Dineen Consulting
> Clause: 61
> Subclause: 61.2.3.3.5
> Page: 344
> Line: 12
> CommentType (E, T or TR): TR
> Comment:
> I am receiving an increasing number of questions
> from customers which indicate a certain amount of
> confusion about the implementation of CRC functions
> and issues of bit ordering.
>
> To assist in clearing up this confusion I am
> requesting that an informative annex be added to this
> clause which includes one to three compliant example
> frames with the associated correct CRC (FCS) value.
>
> These frames will serve as divining rod frames which
> an implementor can quickly use to verify the integrity
> of his CRC implementation and thus achieve early
> inter operability.
> CommentEnd:
> SuggestedRemedy:
> To assist in clearing up this confusion I am
> requesting that an informative annex be added to this
> clause which includes one to three compliant example
> frames with the associated correct CRC (FCS) value.
> The example frames should include the required scrambling
> function. Examples should be provided for both the 2BASE-TL
> and 10PASS-TS cases.
> RemedyEnd:
>
>
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------
Benjamin Brown
178 Bear Hill Road
Chichester, NH 03258
603-491-0296 - Cell
603-798-4115 - Fax
benjamin.brown@ieee.org
-----------------------------------------