Re: [RPRWG] Correction in Chap 10 of RPR Standard ?
Yeah, it would matter because it would report the incorrect high watermark until the next aging interval. Is this long enough to care about? Maybe, maybe not. But since an implementation is already able to set it to the current value when it hits a high value, it should be able to just as easily set it to the current value when asked to reset.
jl
-----Original Message-----
From: Mohit Sood [mailto:mohitsood@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:43 PM
To: J Lemon
Cc: stds-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Correction in Chap 10 of RPR Standard ?
Hi John,
Does it make a significant difference if we reset it to 'zero' ? It would
anyway be updated in the next aging interval to the current occupancy
level (stqDepth). Plus, it would be easier for the hardware to reset it to
'zero' than to the current occupancy level.
Mohit Sood
Grad Student (Dr. Viniotis)
NC State University
> Mohit,
>
> Neither. I believe that it should reset to the current occupancy level.
>
> Care to file an MR on this?
>
> John Lemon
> 802.17 MTG Chair
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Mohit Sood
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: STDS-802-17@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [RPRWG] Correction in Chap 10 of RPR Standard ?
>
>
> Hi
>
> I went through the maintenance requests posted at your web-site but could
> not find this one. I came across a logical error in ResetStqWatermarks()
> routine in Section 10.4.2.3 - this routine resets stqHighWatermark to
> stqSize. Should it not reset to 'zero' ?
> Just wanted to let you know, in case this correction has not been made.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mohit Sood
> Grad Student (Dr. Viniotis)
> NC State University
>
>