Re: [802.3_DMLT] Minutes for IET baseline ad-hoc

[Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh et al., 

I think it is also worthwhile two points brought by Geoff and yourself:

1) This call is an ad-hoc, and it is not within the scope of this ad-hoc to change decision of the Task Force. Ad-hocs are used usually for consensus building and progressing technical work between sessions. Changes to Task Force decisions can be done only at F2F meetings, following the existing process

2) All decisions of the Task Force are binding until they are changed by the Task Force itself (for example, better solution to a problem was identified and consensus was reached to change the existing solution) or later on by the WG during the WG ballot. I do not believe it is appropriate to present the current status of decisions taken by TF as done. I believe technical discussion is always welcome, especially if it presents a previously unexplored avenue, and shed new light on the system we're designing. I also do not believe we should dismiss technical discussion on account that Task Force adopted a baseline and any further discussion is pointless. 

Furthermore, just from my own perspective (and perhaps that will sound a bit obvious) but I would very much prefer not to change existing fields and their definitions, unless there is a valid point to do so. I do not agree with the assertion that there is no argument not to change it. As a WG, we have been conservative in changes over the years and it was to the benefit of the technology.  

Regards

Marek

On 3 April 2014 13:11, Hugh Barrass (hbarrass) <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All,

 

The baseline ad-hoc meeting was held earlier today with excellent participation.

 

Attendees: Hugh Barrass, Anatoly Moldovansky, Anthony Sorbello, Brian Allen, Arvind Kansal, Marek Hajduczenia, Daniel Sexton, Albert Tretter, Pat Thaler, Alon Regev, TI Denis Beaudoin, Joel Goergen, Geoff Thompson

 

Hugh reminded attendees of the patent policy and displayed the links to access the policy online.

 

The discussion focused on the baseline presentation adopted by the Task Force:

 

http://www.ieee802.org/3/br/8023-IET-TF-1401_thaler-01-0114-iet-proposal-v2.pdf

 

The main topics of conversation were:

 

SMD-E vs SFD as a start delimiter for express frames. It was clear that this topic will require further discussion.

 

Preamble length – particularly with respect to PCS alignment issues.

 

Fragment count.

 

MACsec – although the question was raised, time did not permit a full dicussion, we should re-open this topic on the next call.

 

The next call is scheduled for 8.00am PDT on April 10th.

 

My personal observation: There were a number of „Ethernet experts“ on the call who have not been able to attend Task Force meetings. The discussions and agreements amongst this wider audience will significantly increase the quality of the Task Force work and will enable an easier passage during Working Group and Sponsor ballot.

 

Hugh.