RE: [RPRWG] Frame Formats in Draft 2.0
Paritosh,
Mea culpa. I made an editing mistake. The controlType and controlVersion fields should have been placed before the HEC, keeping the HEC in the same position for both data and control frames. I'll file a comment against this to have it corrected. Thanks for catching this.
John Lemon
-----Original Message-----
From: Paritosh Kulkarni [mailto:paritosh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:25 PM
To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] Frame Formats in Draft 2.0
I see that the frame format for Control Frames is different in Draft 2.0 as
compared to Draft 1.1.
Specifically, the control version and control type fields have been moved to
after the header checksum in Draft 2.0 (Page 150) and the header checksum
does NOT cover these fields. Also, looking at one of Marc Holness's
bridging proposals made in Nov 2002 meeting titled
"mh_frame_transmission_text_01.pdf" on Page 3 Section A.2 titled Frame
Format, it says pretty clearly in the Editor's Notes that NO changes are
being suggested to the P802.17 D1.1 control frame. The control frame in D1.1
has the control type and control version fields before the header checksum
and the header checksum covered these fields (D1.1, Page 112 Section 8.3).
This makes the offsets for header checksum different for Data Vs Control
frames leading to unnecessary complexity and awkwardness in implementations.
Could someone clarify when this changed ?
Thanks,
-Paritosh