Re: Comments on P802.3ae/D1.1
I have inserted my replies for the Clause 33 (now 45) comments in amongst the
message.
> "Ben Brown" <bbrown@xxxxxxxx> on 13/11/2000 04:18:15
>
> Sent by: "Ben Brown" <bbrown@xxxxxxxx>
>
> To: "802.3ae" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> cc: (Edward Turner/GB/3Com)
> Subject: Comments on P802.3ae/D1.1
>
> Hey,
>
> Here are some comments on the latest release of the draft.
> Comments from all of the clauses are combined. This is limited
> to those comments that weren't made (or heard) last week
> (I think).
>
> Enjoy,
> Ben
>
> <snip>
>
> 33.1.2, page 72, line 28:
> This is a figure and should labeled as such.
> The text in this figure should be changed from
> "MDIO/MDC" to "MDIO/Interface"
OK.
>
>
> 33.2.1.4.1, page 76, line 43:
> I thought we had removed all references to "SUPI".
I'll change the references to 'SUPI' to '10GBASE-W4 PMA-PMD interface'.
>
>
> 33.2.1.4.3, page 77, lines 4 & 5:
> Change the 2 instances of 9.58 Gbps to 9.95 Gbps.
OK.
>
>
> 33.2.2.2.5, page 81:
> This bit is unnecessary. The value read from 2.0.0 is
> fully adequate to relate this information.
Agreed. I'll remove the bit.
>
>
> 33.2.3.1, page 87, line 32:
> Can this RESET bit be considered common with the PCS
> & WIS RESET bits if a particular implementation combines
> the PHY XGXS, the 10GBASE-R PCS and the WIS?
This was the issue I was trying to resolve with my motion to 'Move that the IEEE
P802.3ae Task Force adopt a "devices in chip" register with a bit per device.'
Such a register would tell the management agent which devices were being
affected by a RESET. This motion was tabled at the Tampa meeting and so the
comment above cannot yet be resolved.
>
>
> 33.2.3.1.2, page 88 & 33.2.4.1.2, page 90:
> Include the note used in all other descriptions of the
> LOOPBACK bit that describes how as much logic as possible
> should be exercised in this mode.
OK.
>
>
> 33.2.5, page 93, line 2 & 33.2.5.4, page 93, line 38:
> There are 2 SHALLs at these locations that attempt to
> enforce the same requirement. One of these is redundant.
I shall remove the second statement (page 93, line 38).
>
> <snip>
>
Thank you,
Ed