| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Ran, The other “should”s in the Clause 79 usage rules have PICS entries. That includes the should that we already had in 79.3.7.2 and there weren’t any comments suggesting that we take that PICS entry out. Therefore, I put in a PICS entry to
be consistent. The reason for requiring that the TLV be in a PDU addressed to the nearest bridge group address is to ensure the PDU is coming from the link partner. If it is addressed to the device’s individual MAC address, it might come from some bridge
hops away. We accepted Andy’s comment agreeing that it should be a shall. The other alternative is to not make any change since it was an E comment and would be out of scope on the recirc if there was no change. I lean toward making the change but I don’t want this to flip flop and require recirculation.
Regards, Pat From: Ran, Adee [mailto:adee.ran@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Pat, If you don't add a "shall" in clause 79, there is no need for an additional PICS entry. I'm also in doubt whether the text in 99.4.2 needs to be changed at all. 802.1Q isn’t within my expertise, but couldn’t the LP also announce support of preemption by sending a TLV directly to the local device
address (which may be known) rather than to the bridge group address, or in some other way? The additional text would become a part of a "shall" statement in clause 99 that seems to rule out any other possibility – and would make the "should" in 79 moot. </Adee> From: Pat (Patricia) Thaler [mailto: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).” |