| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Pat, I have one comment on the proposed drawing: it seems that a single oMACMergeEntity maps into two oPHYEntity instances – as far as I understand, we have two MAC with MAC merge layer, but not two PHYs. I think it should be a 1:1 relationship between oMACMergeEntity and oPHYEntity. Some more answers inline Regards From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Here is my initial try on a relationship diagram for MAC Merge. I haven’t done one of these before. For now this is a diagram that applies only when MAC Merge is present. If adding MAC Merge to Figure 30-3 is done similar to this diagram, then I think this could be merged into Figure 30-3 in a way similar to what was done with MAC Control. I.e. Add a one to many relationship between oMACEntity back and oPHYEntity in and in the description of oPHYEntity state that it is contained in oMACMerge when oMACMerge is present and otherwise it is contained in oMACEntity. I also considered having oPHYEntity always contained by oMACEntity as it currently is, but then which MACEntity of a MACMerge sublayer own it. We don’t have any many to many or two to many relationships defined. Also, this is more similar to the way MAC Control was added. I have a number of questions about this drawing: There are a number of questions about this diagram: Should the deprecated objects be removed since it is a new diagram? [mh0814] I suggest to submit a comment against 802.3REV and remove deprecated elements – that is not within the charter of IET to fix that. Should a new symbol be added to indicate a two to one relationship instead of using the many to one relationship? [mh0814] It would not hurt to extend the current drawing model, where we add a number next to the arrow to indicate the number of instances: (2), (1), or (n) Should this relationship be shown in some other way?] [mh0814] I believe it is correct as it is shown right now. Should oResourceTypeID stay where it is or should it be contained by oMACMergeEntity? If it stays where it is, there may be one for the eMAC and one for the pMAC. Note that oResourceTypeID is specified in 802.1F, a withdrawn standard. Because of that, I lean toward leaving it where it is. [mh0814] again – not a problem we need to fix under IET … |