RE: [EFM] Discovery (it was OAM...)
Carlos,
Did you mean to write "bound to the IEEE 802 world" rather than Ethernet? As
far as I know, there is nothing in 802.1X that assumes Ethernet - if there
is then that would be a mistake that needs fixing. If it's bound to the 802
world then that's fine since we're defining an 802 standard here that will,
I guarantee you, fit in just fine with the 802 architecture and its service
interfaces. You certainly cannot expect any *more* than that from this
standards' group.
Also I'd dispute your claim that PPPoX makes "interoperability easier" but
that's a discussion for another place.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:52 AM
To: Faye Ly
Cc: Francois Menard; Carlos Ribeiro; Geoff Thompson;
seto.koichiro@hitachi-cable.co.jp; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dolors Sala
Subject: RE: [EFM] Discovery (it was OAM...)
...
(on the other hand, the proposed alternative - 802.1X - doesn't quite cut
it; it's bound to the Ethernet world. The 'PPPoX' familiy makes
interoperability easier)