Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_SPMD] Withdraw comments #149 and #151

Scope in the draft doesn’t mean that you touched a function – it refers to specific functions in the text.  I think it would be better to have a brief discussion and, if we agree to make a change, pick our best candidate to move forward at the time – rather than withdraw.  That way we preserve the function in scope and clearly mark it as a change for the recirculation.

 

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

 

From: Tim.Baggett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <Tim.Baggett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 9:23 PM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-SPMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Withdraw comments #149 and #151

 

George,

 

Comment 151 should only relate to D-PLCA which is in scope. Maybe it is good to not withdraw the comment just to open up discussion for a bit? We have three possibilities we are exploring. 

 

  1.  don’t allow mixed static PLCA and D-PLCA nodes on the same segment. Regardless of the outcome, this is likely to be the industry recommendation. 
  2. Add a new variable that limits the minimum PLCA node count that the D-PLCA coordinator can reduce the cycle to. This will protect the static assigned nodes. 
  3. Add a warning that when using D-PLCA with statically assigned nodes, the nodes must be assigned a static local node ID in the range of 1-7. 
  4. Other?

 

Tim

From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 11:06:57 PM
To: Tim Baggett - C21560 <Tim.Baggett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-SPMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-SPMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Withdraw comments #149 and #151

 

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

Tim – thanks.  If comment 151 needs more work, we need to make sure it remains in scope.  While we will probably touch the state diagram, I don’t really think we are touching it on this issue.  We may wish to work it halfway, knowing it needs more work, rather than withdraw.

 

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

 

From: Tim Baggett <000015f075877453-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 9:03 PM
To: STDS-802-3-SPMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_SPMD] Withdraw comments #149 and #151

 

Hi George, Val,

 

I’d like to withdraw my comments #149 and #151. Both are DPLCA. Comment #149 is not an issue once I clarify with comment #150. Comment #151 needs some more work for a proper solution that does not affect convergence.

 

Regards,

-- 

Tim Baggett

Technical Staff Engineer - Applications

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microchip Technology, Inc.

Automotive Information Systems

8601 Ranch Rd 2222, Park Centre, Bldg. 3, Austin, TX 78730

Office: 512-334-8450

Tim.Baggett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx www.microchip.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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