RE: [RPRWG] Frame Formats in Draft 2.0
Leon,
Comments interleaved, as an "anyone else" comment.
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Leon Bruckman
>> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:20 AM
>> To: 'John Lemon'
>> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Frame Formats in Draft 2.0
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>> In Marc Holness proposal (mh_frame_transmission_text_01.pdf),
>> that we passed
>> in Hawaii, there are two modes of operation:
>> - relaxed
>> - strict
>>
>> According to my understanding of A.1.1 in that document, the RPR
>> data frame
>> format for relaxed mode should remain the same as in D1.1 (no ttlBase and
>> extRingControl fields).
Incorrect, I believe. The two bytes before the HEC are there for
strict or relexed mode. In fact, they distinguish between the two.
However, some folks believe that the extended format is only for
strict mode, which has not been well documented.
>> The data frame format should be modified only for
>> strict mode of operation. How to select relaxed/strict mode is
>> not defined,
>> but I assumed some management operation.
>>
>> I was surprised to see that the only data frame format defined in D2.0 is
>> the strict mode. Can you or anyone else comment ?
I will be submitting many comments, as well as an alternative proposal,
to help achieve clarity in this area.
DVJ
>> Leon
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Lemon [mailto:JLemon@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:27 AM
>> To: Paritosh Kulkarni
>> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: 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
>>