[8023-CMTF] FW: Proposal uploaded to website
E-mail from Howard Frazier.
Kevin,
I appreciate the work that you and Manoj have done to
address the issues that
were raised at the March meeting. I offer the
following comments on the draft edits:
Slide 16 Broad Market Potential:
Deleting the first bullet of the response undermines the
"Need for the Project" as
stated in the PAR. I suggest that you copy the edited text
from the PAR into
this response. Without this text, the response to the
"Broad set(s) of applications"
bullet is inadequate.
Slide 16 Broad Market Potential:
The text
implies that representatives from "at least 16 companies" have been in
attendance
at all SG and TF
meetings. I suggest that this sentence be reworded to:
During the study group and task force
meetings, there have been up to
35 people representing 16 companies in
attendance.
This may be an understatement, but the current text appears to be a gross
overstatement.
Slide 18
Compatibility:
I
would argue that the current draft *changes* the MAC, rather than *conforms* to
the
MAC. The response should address this argument. A possible response might
be:
The proposed standard will include rate
limiting enhancements in the
MAC sublayer while
maintaing consistency with 802.1d, 802.1Q, and
the relevant portions
of 802.1f.
Slide
20 Distinct Identity:
I
would argue that the current draft does not specify "One unique solution for
[the]
problem". The response should address this argument. A possible
response might be:
The proposed standard may include multiple
parameters to support
a single rate limiting
mechanism.
Note
that I don't necessarily agree with this response, but these words seem to
reflect
the
position of the Task Force, and I think that they need to be
stated.
Slide
22 Technical Feasibility:
The
response does not address bullets 2 & 3 of this criteria, and provides an
inadequate response to bullet 1. I do not have any suggested text
at this time.
Slide
27 Objectives:
The
two objectives that remain do not provide much guidance to the Task Force
as
far as
the properties of the rate limiting mechanisms. For instance, what is
the
range
of rates that should be supported, and with what degree of granularity
and
precision? This may be one of the reasons that the mechanisms that
were defined
in
D1.1 did not accomplish what was intended. I think that
there properties of the
rate
limiting mechanism should be stated in the objectives, so that the WG
knows
what
it is getting, and the Task Force knows what it is supposed to
provide.
Howard
Frazier
Colleagues,
I have uploaded a
proposal containing draft edits to the 802.3ar PAR, 5 criteria and TF objectives
to the website. It may be found here:
Manoj Wadekar and I
worked on these draft edits over the last few weeks. We wanted to post on the
website to encourage review, discussion, etc prior to the May interim
meeting.
I'm also copying
Howard, Pat, and Shimon, since they raised a set of issues, at the March 2006
meeting, highlighting conflicts between the current state of the TF/draft
amendment and the original PAR, 5 criteria, and TF
objectives.
Feel free to discuss
using this thread or create new threads as appropriate.
Kevin
Daines
Chair, P802.3ar
TF