Re: [RPRWG] Rough outline of PAR for the RPR on the backplane
Apologies for this email.
I have tried to unsubscribe several times to this list through the "correct"
channels. I have sent an unsubscribe to majordomo, etc. In fact, my email
address according to majordomo is not attached to any mailing lists. Yet, I
continue to receive emails. Can anyone help me unsubscribe?
Thanks
Frank Latini
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:13 AM
> To: STDS-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Rough outline of PAR for the RPR on the backplane
>
> David -
>
> Some comments interspersed below, based on my own recent experience of the
> kinds of comments that you are very likely to receive from NesCom members
> if you submit the Scope & Purpose shown below "as is".
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 06:41 06/04/2004, David V James wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >As per last P802.17 WG meeting, we concluded that
> >RPR on the backplane PAR should be provided for comment,
> >one week before the MSC meeting.
> >
> >I'm a bit tired, so this is not as good as it should be.
> >Feel free to refine, wordsmith, revise, etc. based on
> >suggestions. While the MSC meeting is next Monday night,
> >inputs would be most valuable if received before Sunday PM.
> >
> >
> >
> >Scope:
>
> The Scope is expected to be used as the basis of the Scope clause in the
> standard that the project will develop, and on submission to RevCom, they
> will check to see that the Scope clause does actually match the scope of
> the PAR. It therefore should be written with the intention that it can
> essentially be cut & pasted verbatim into the Scope clause of the draft.
>
> >Provide a network-based backplane interconnect, based on
> >the ring topology and baseline protocols of P802.17 RPR,
> >while retaining the RPR payload (after HEC) format and
> >function.
>
> This is a sentence fragment, rather than a complete sentence. Change it to
> be grammatically correct - for example: "The scope of this standard is to
> provide..."
>
> >While this is not an amendment of P802.17 RPR,
> >large portions of that standard will most likely be
> >included by reference.
>
> This is commentary, rather than a statement of Scope. It should therefore
> be moved elsewhere - for example, to the supporting comments section of
> the
> PAR.
>
>
> >Extensions for the short-latency environment include
> >destination-based flow control, hardware-based fault-retry,
> >time-of-day synchronization, synchronous data transfers,
> >and standardized direct-to-memory {read, write, and
> >read-modify-write} operations.
>
> As above, this needs to be converted into a gramatically correct sentence.
>
>
> >While the standard will include the definition low-power
> >short-distance PHYs, these may be included in the standard
> >by reference to existing and/or active standards.
>
> This is mostly commentary about the process of constructing the document,
> rather than a statement of scope.
>
> Overall, the above Scope statement is way too big; the PAR form indicates
> 5
> lines as the target size.
>
>
> >Purpose:
>
> As with Scope, the Purpose should be written in a form that will allow it
> to be cut-and-pasted verbatim into the Purpose clause in the draft. For
> example, "The purpose of this standard is to simplify...".
>
> >To simplify and supplement the baseline RPR capabilities
> >to facilitate their adoption in the backplane (or collection
> >of nearby backplanes) environment.
> >
> >Coordination:
> > Sync-Ethernet (when approved)
> > through exchange of drafts
> > Ethernet on the backplane
> > through exchange of drafts
> > P802.17
> > through PAR review
> > through exchange of drafts
> > through WG ballot participation
> >
> >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
>
> Regards,
> Tony