RE: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test pattern
D3.2 has been sent to the web site administrator for uploading and should be
online Thursday. The comment and ballot tools have been uploaded, as has
the resolutions to D3.1 comments.
Cheers,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Nepple, Bruce [mailto:bnepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:57 PM
To: 802.3ae
Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test
pattern
Ben, Tom
Yep that clears it up a bunch. Much Better.
When will D3.2 be available? I am concerned
about other changes from D3.1.
Concerning the 50.3.8 draft I received, there is no
mention of the SONET scrambler. My assumption at
this point is that the scrambler operates normally
starting at the J1 octet. Perhaps a comment to this
regard would make it definite.
Thanks
Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Alexander [mailto:Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:24 PM
> To: 'Ben Brown'; Nepple, Bruce
> Cc: 802.3ae
> Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test
> pattern
>
>
> Ben and Bruce,
>
> This is correct. Subclause 50.3.8 (the test pattern
> generator/checker) was completely rewritten from D3.1 to
> D3.2. If Bruce was reading D3.1, then I fully understand his
> concerns; however, they should be alleviated after D3.2 is circulated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Tom Alexander
> WIS Scribe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:49 PM
> To: Nepple Bruce
> Cc: 802.3ae
> Subject: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test pattern
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> D3.1 is the current draft though D3.2 should be available
> soon. 50.3.8 should be changed with D3.2 (Tom Alexander,
> please comment here) and replaced with a document developed
> by Tim Warland as part of the SJTP ad-hoc process.
>
> See the following referenced document from the 802.3ae July
> presentation URL that will be used to replace this section.
> I hope this helps.
>
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/jul01/warland_1
> _0701.pdf
>
> I admit not reviewing this D3.1 section with much scrutiny,
> knowing (or at least expecting) that it would be replaced
> in the next draft.
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>
> "Nepple, Bruce" wrote:
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > In reading P802.3ae/D3.1, Figure 50-15 shows the process
> > of CID pattern generation and reception as being
> > outside the normal WIS transmit and receive process.
> >
> > In addition, the third to the last paragraph in
> > 50.3.8 describes the process of replacing the CID
> > pattern with the "default" pattern before sending it
> > to the WIS receive process.
> >
> > Perhaps this is an old draft?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bruce Nepple
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@xxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:20 AM
> > > To: Nepple, Bruce
> > > Cc: stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test pattern
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > Where did you get the information that the CID was "hacked"
> > > onto the SONET frame rather than inserted into the frame
> > > generation and made part of the B1 parity calculation?
> > > Is this lifted from a presentation or email thread? I
> > > don't recall seeing this as part of Tim Warland's draft
> > > document.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ben Brown
> > > Chair of Serial Jitter Test Patterns AD-HOC
> > >
> > > "Nepple, Bruce" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am arriving a bit late in the game. I've tried to
> > > > reconstruct the history of the jitter test "stuff"
> > > > from the archives, but there is precious little
> > > > information there.
> > > >
> > > > It appears that the current implementation of the WIS CID
> > > > jitter test pattern is "hacked" onto an existing
> > > > SONET frame, and depends on the receiver having knowledge
> > > > of the "default bytes" in order to replace the CID locations.
> > > >
> > > > Rather than create a separate framing/deframing mechanism
> > > > to insert or remove CID pattern bytes without affecting
> > > > parity, I would rather just make use of existing
> > > > framer resources (in my multi-protocol environment).
> > > > Why can't the CID bytes just be part of the legal WIS
> > > > overhead, rather than "hacked" on to an existing frame?
> > > >
> > > > The whole idea of filling those bytes from different
> > > > resources (avoiding parity logic) and then replacing
> > > > those bytes upon reception to make parity work seems
> > > > like extra work. I'd be interested in knowing the
> > > > rationale behind that decision.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Nepple
> > > > Network Elements, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Benjamin Brown
> > > AMCC
> > > 2 Commerce Park West
> > > Suite 104
> > > Bedford NH 03110
> > > 603-641-9837 - Work
> > > 603-491-0296 - Cell
> > > 603-626-7455 - Fax
> > > 603-798-4115 - Home Office
> > > bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Benjamin Brown
> AMCC
> 2 Commerce Park West
> Suite 104
> Bedford NH 03110
> 603-641-9837 - Work
> 603-491-0296 - Cell
> 603-626-7455 - Fax
> 603-798-4115 - Home Office
> bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------
>