RE: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
There was actually an editorial comment on this issue
(Comment #488) that suggested discussing only the control
value within the fairness clause (and leaving the fairness
frame format to the frame formats section). Since we
didn't have time to resolve the editorial comments at the
meeting, I was trying to bring the issue up to see if there
was some kind of precedence for resolving a comment such
as this.
Anyway, since there isn't a precedence, I think I will
resolve the comment by accepting the suggested remedy.
Thanks,
-Anoop
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Alexander [mailto:Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:48 PM
> To: 'Robert D. Love'; Jim Mollenauer; Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I have no particular problem with this suggested change. In fact, the
> removal of unnecessary duplication in the draft is always beneficial
> and should be encouraged. Consolidation of all the detailed
> description
> of the frame formats in one clause is probably a good idea, even if it
> does make the standard somewhat more tedious to read. An example of
> this practice may be found in Std 802.11; all of the frame formats and
> field descriptions are located in Clause 7 of this document and
> nowhere else.
>
> However, I would like to remind everyone that the FIRST
> priority of the
> editorial team is to generate Draft 0.3 according to the TF-authorized
> instructions from the interim. Extracurricular work such as
> the creation
> of new proposed text for building consensus should be taken on by the
> editors (assuming that they are willing to volunteer for this in the
> first place) only after Draft 0.3 is ready.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Tom Alexander
> Chief Editor, P802.17
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:58 AM
> To: Jim Mollenauer; Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Frame formats in the fairness section
>
>
>
> Jim, I acknowledge that we need to have agreement of the full
> working group
> before we can accept a significant editorial change such as
> the one that
> Anoop is suggesting, and incorporate it into our approved
> draft. However, I
> would strongly encourage the creation and distribution of the
> proposed text
> well in advance of the July meeting once we get some
> indication that this is
> a beneficial change that is likely to get broad support.
> This way, we may
> be able to get that text into the draft that comes out of the
> July meeting.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Mollenauer" <jmollenauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:36 AM
> Subject: 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
> >
>