RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
John,
Sorry for this missstatement, should have been:
> The BAH has voted to support sufficient mechanisms to
> enhanced as well as basic bridging. Any proposed
> formats and protocols, proposed within BAH,
> thus have to support both.
Your are correct that the RPR group, as a whole,
can vote to approve, reject, or modify recommendations
from the BAH.
Of course, if the RPR working group would still
have to address the same documented constraints
and problematic scenarios, some of which have
been clarified by Anoop, and others which are
well documented in BAH writeups (that presumably
will be presented to the RPR working group).
DVJ
David V. James, PhD
Chief Architect
Network Processing Solutions
Data Communications Division
Cypress Semiconductor, Bldg #3
3901 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1599
Work: +1.408.545.7560
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.408.456.1962
Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Lemon [mailto:JLemon@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: 'djz@xxxxxxxxxxx'; David V. James
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
>
>
> David,
>
> One comment on something you said that really caught my attention.
>
> You stated:
> > The BAH has voted to support sufficient mechanisms to
> > enhanced as well as basic bridging. Any proposed
> > formats and protocols thus have to support both.
>
> Please do not fall under the delusion that BAH has been granted the right to
> determine how 802.17 will do bridging. Just like any other ad hoc, BAH may
> present proposals to the WG, and the WG as whole will decide whether to
> follow the recommendations of the ad hoc.
>
> jl
>