[802.3_DMLT] Comment 57

["Pat (Patricia) Thaler" <pthaler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I ran into a problem implementing Comment 57.

 

The comment is:

Cl 99 SC 99.4.2 P 43 L 1 # 57

Comment Type E

Requirements for inter-operability should be mandated by 'shall' instead of 'should'

SuggestedRemedy

Consider using shall instead of should

 

And our response was:

ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. We will add the shall to 79.3.7.2 where the TLV usage rules

should be specified and change this "shall" to is.

Add a PICS entry to Clause 79 PICS for this.

 

However, in checking with the base standard Clause 79, usage rules are always should (because they apply to the LLDP user, not implementation).

 

Is there any objection to updating the response as follows?

ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. We will add the should to 79.3.7.2 where the TLV usage rules

should be specified. Delete the sentence here.

Add a PICS entry to Clause 79 PICS for this.

To enforce a "shall" for interoperability, added to the requirement for enabling preemption

capability "in an LLDPDU addressed to the Nearest Bridge group address (see IEEE

802.1Q)."

 

This change applies the “shall” to the receiver of the TLV which does what the commenter requested.

This wasn’t a required comment.

 

The full sentence in 99.4.2 for when preemption is allowed to be enabled becomes:

“The preemption capability shall be enabled only if the link partner announces its support for the preemption capability via an Additional Ethernet Capabilities TLV in an LLDPDU addressed to the Nearest Bridge group address (see IEEE 802.1Q).”