| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
As we discussed at our last session in Portland, I revised the T&D document (using my judgment on items we did not have time to review during the meeting), and sent it on to John Lemon for proofreading and formatting for ballot. John expects to be done today. The document will be posted and a notification sent to the T&D group when the document is available for review. The T&D group will have a short time to review the document before the working group is notified that the document is available for electronic ballot. If we start the ballot this Monday night or Tuesday morning, this gives us a few days leeway to have the ballot complete by the time of the meeting. The short review period should not be a serious problem since the document need not be error-free for the ballot. Serious errors will be corrected and the document re-posted. The 30-day ballot process will then be started. John is checking now on the rules for the ballot.
One issue arose during editing of the document. I found that we had defined the terms 'source' and 'destination' with respect to the ring. I believe these terms should be defined with respect to the network (of bridged rings) in order to be consistent with 802 usage. If, for example, we were to use either the Nortel double encapsulation bridging proposal or the FNC scheme proposed in March, I believe the 802.17 source and destination address fields should identify the 'end-to-end' 802.17 terminal stations (ie. not the ingress and egress stations on one particular ring. So, I did change the definitions of source and destination accordingly, and I used the terms ingress station and egress station when referencing a particular ring. Please let me know if you have any objection to this and I will change this back before the document goes out for ballot.
Comments? Questions?
Bob