Re: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
Anoop:
I think you have the right idea. We should really have the frame
definition and the explanation in the same place, not just for fairness,
but for all the different packets. Then we could summarize them in an
appendix for reference purposes.
Before we can do this across the board, we should bring it up in the
full working group.
Regards,
Jim
Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> I wanted to get an idea from the group for whether it makes
> sense to describe the fairness frame format in the frame
> formats clause (Clause 8) or the fairness clause (Clause 9).
> Right now some parts are duplicated.
>
> For example, either Figure 9-1 or Figure 8-5 should be
> removed since they are identical. There's also the
> issue of where the description of the "Fairness Control
> Header" and "Control Value" belong. The "Protection
> Frame", for example, is not described in Clause 8.
>
> Maybe we can leave the basic fairness frame format
> in Clause 8, but only describe the contents in
> Clause 9.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> -Anoop
> --
> Anoop Ghanwani - Lantern Communications - 408-521-6707