|
I
believe that extended bridging will need an introduction and some
technical
support. I concur with John Lemon that the technical
changes will probably
be in
the area of Clause 7 ringlet selection.
Relative to the overview, my preference is Clause 5,
others might refer Annex F,
or we
could take the 802.3 tradition and simply leave it
out(:>).
I
think it might work best to generate the text first, then decide where
it
best
fits.
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@alum.mit.edu
I
don't see how having PICS causes any decision on whether this should be a
subclause, a subannex, a stand alone clause, or a standalone annex. Whether it
is sub to something else or a standalone entity really depends upon how
substantial it is and how dependent or independent it is.
If
it is decided to be sub to something, the only two logical somethings are
Clause 7 and Annex F, with Clause 7 being the more sensible. (Perhaps this
becomes an extension to, or a precursor to, ringlet selection.) If it becomes
a new stand alone something, it really should be a clause, not an annex, so it
would become Clause 14.
While this will be an OPTIONAL feature to fully support, I am guessing
that if you implement it there will be PICS entries for conformance that will
be MANDATORY for the feature. If there are PICS, it would seem like you would
have to have a sub-clause.
Michael
Could be a new clause or annex. Depending upon technical direction of
specification could also be sub-clause. At this point in time, not sure what
the best 802.17 specification vehicle should be.
Perhaps we can discuss.
Marc.
Marc,
What was the
reason the decide to add a sub-clause instead of an Annex
?
Leon
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Marc Holness
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 3:40
AM
To:
STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [RPRWG] P802.17 Interim
Session (Oct 4-6)
RPRWGers,
As previously stated by Mike Takefman, the focus
of this session will be the Spatially Aware Bridging Study Group
(SABSG).
To facilitate the finalization of the PAR and
5-Criteria for the project, please find attached 3 packages
outlining:
1) Aspects of a
proposed PAR,
2) Draft
5-Criteria,
3) Operating objectives
governing the project,
that we will review during the
session.
Regards,
Marc Holness
|