| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jason, thanks. It looks like you have a decent solution, and we’ll deal with the multiplicity, if and when we extend the types. Both was just completely nonspecific. Multi-type_0_1 is useful and shows the path George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
On Jan 8, 2025, at 5:55 PM, Jason Potterf (jpotterf) <jpotterf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would be in favor of renaming as mixed is very close to mixing segment and could cause confusion. That said, I think it's more complicated than we'd like if we want to make this extensible.
This type can't indicate "Supports any Type " as the future type requirements are unknown to current devices implemented under 802.3da. So it MUST mean "Supports BOTH Type 0 and Type 1" now and forever. In a future with a Type 2 and Type 3, we'd have to have
a scheme like this with additional enumerated types:
type0 Type 0 MPD(s)
type1 Type 1 MPD(s)
multi-type_0-1 Able to operate as Type 0, or Type 1
type2 Type 2 MPD(s)
type3 Type 3 MPD(s)
multi-type_2-3 Able to operate as Type 2, or Type 3
multi-type_0-3 Able to operate as Type 0, Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3
It's ugly, but it's accurate.
From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 6:08 PM To: STDS-802-3-SPMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-SPMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [802.3_SPMD] Comment 194 Peter – For extensibility I wouldn’t do that. Both isn’t extensible if anyone ends up adding new types. If we want to have a polymorph type, then it needs to generalize. However, maybe ‘Mixed’ isn’t the right name. If we do rename the type, then we need to do it throughout clause 189.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860
From: Peter Jones (petejone) <00000b5d1d72f221-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Folks,
I think we should change ‘type Mixed’ (able to be a 0 or 1) To ‘type Both (able to be a 0 or 1)
Regards, Peter _______________________________________________________________ Peter Jones Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Networking Hardware Chair, Ethernet Alliance Mobile: +1 408 315 8024 Email: petejone@xxxxxxxxx Web: https://about.me/petergjones Webex: https://cisco.webex.com/meet/petejone Book a call: Peter's booking page _______________________________________________________________
From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you, Chad. For others, this became a big ticket item because when Chad and I were discussing the proposed responses it became clear that we were talking about different meanings of “mixed”. It sounds now like we are talking only about the meaning of the output of the management object. An MPD can be a ‘type 0’ ‘type 1’ or a ‘type Mixed’ (able to be a 0 or 1), and an MPSE in the state diagram detects ‘type Mixed’ as a separate thing… It sounds like for the management object we want: Type 0 – only type 0 or a mixture of type 0 and type Mixed MPDs are detected. Type 1 – only type 1 or a mixture of type 1 and type Mixed MPDs are detected. Or Mixture – a mixture of type 0 and type 1 MPDs are detected. This includes a mixture which also has Type Mixed MPDs.
We still need to cover the case where ONLY Type Mixed are discovered, which was the case considered in the comment, and we need to decide if we want to a value of Mixed – only type Mixed MPDs are detected.
Regardless, it seems the required solution goes beyond what the commenter’s resolution (my resolution) envisioned, needing the extra words in type 0, type 1 and the addition of mixture…
George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860
From: Chad Jones (cmjones) <00000b60b3f54e8d-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As I’m making my way through the comments, I will use the reflector to discuss things that I don’t think need a whole presentation. Here’s my first one:
Comment 194
Commentor has a point that mixed is missing from this text, but the remedy doesn’t fix it. The answer is here is that we are misusing mixed in this context. Type0 should mean that the PSE has only discovered type 0 and type mixed MPDs. Similarly type1 means only type 1 and type mixed MPDs are present. Mixed REALLY means I have a mixture of type 1 and type 0, and in this case we don't care it there are any type mixed present. The main point is I have two PD types that are incompatible with interoperation. We should find a new name for mixed here, "blended" is a better description. There could be a fourth case called mixed where it only discovered type mixed MPDs and the PSE can then power as whatever type it is.
Regards,
Chad Jones Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 |