RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lemon [mailto:JLemon@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:08 PM
To: Holness, Marc [CAR:OM3H:EXCH]
Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives

I'm concerned about what you write below, which I hope is just a misunderstanding on my part. You mention providing new frame structure text "to the Clause 8 Technical Editor for incorporation into the draft". That would obviously not be acceptable without it first being reviewed and approved by the WG. No ad hoc has been granted the authority to make any changes to the standard; only to work towards providing text that will more likely be acceptable to the WG than if done on an individual basis.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Holness [mailto:holness@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 12:13 PM
To: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx; Mike Takefman
Cc: David V. James; Anoop Ghanwani; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives

One of the BAH requirements on the Frame Structure is to support station identification. All (currently revised to 3) options can provide station identification.

At the next BAH meeting (Wednesday 2002Jul03), BAH will attempt to collectively decide upon the list of requirements on the Frame structure. This list will be provided to the Clause 8 Technical Editor for incorporation into the draft. In addition, BAH will be providing a list of viable Frame structures that support the requirements to the Technical Editor.

The BAH requirements on the Frame structure have not been closed off yet. We have received some new requirements from the Flooding analysis BAH sub-team that have semantical requirements on the Frame structure. NOTE: The other areas of BAH also produce requirements on the Frame structure.

At next week's BAH meeting, we hope to get agreement on the Flooding analysis (DVJ on behalf of the Flooding sub-team, has sent out revised Draft text today). We also hope to get agreement on our Bridging proposals and roadmap. Once this is done, then BAH is in a position to see the resulting list of Frame structure requirements (both syntactic and semantic).

-----Original Message-----
From: David James [mailto:djz@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Mike Takefman
Cc: David V. James; Anoop Ghanwani; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives

> I am quite certain the BAH has not voted on forcing
> a frame to have an SA that exists on the ring.
> Therefore, my objection to your algorithm stands.
The BAH is considering three options, which have
8-bit or 48-bit local source identifiers,
depending on the proposal.

The agreed-upon strategy is to select between these
three proposals, or a refined version of them. If you
are planning on proposing a new fourth alternative,
I'm sure the BAH would prefer to see that ASAP.

> Therefore I felt I am under no obligation
> to correct a typographical error on your part
> since I did not reference it in my rebuttal.
Clearly no obligation, but probably helpful to
avoid propagation of known code bugs.

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: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Takefman
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:55 AM
> To: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David V. James; Anoop Ghanwani; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
>
>
>
> David,
>
> I am quite certain the BAH has not voted on forcing
> a frame to have an SA that exists on the ring.
> Therefore, my objection to your algorithm stands.
>
> Based on that fact, my email did not discuss your
> algorithm aside from pointing out its reliance
> on having a lookup based on SA.
>
> Therefore I felt I am under no obligation
> to correct a typographical error on your part
> since I did not reference it in my rebuttal.
>
> have a great weekend,
>
> mike