Re: [EFM] Re: OAM - this is Ethernet Bob but not as we know it
>
> I hope you found my latest effort on the private circuit issue constructive
> rather than destructive.
>
> This is an open democratic forum and all I am doing is pitching for what I
> want to be in the spec., just like everybody else.
>
If I read the emails correctly, the "circuit issue" is really what other
folks have been calling the bandwidth transparency issue (ie get all
bits thru at line rate no matter what). This is certainly a legitmate
difference between the transport proposals that needs to be talked
about. I didn't intend to cut-off discussion on this point.
The other issue that was mentioned (ie one needs 802.1D bridging for OAM
in frames) is what I wanted to get past by guaranteeing that whatever
method we decide to use for transport will be completely and
unequivocably defined within 802.3 and no outside protocols or
specifications will be required. So we won't have any dependencies on
802.1D.
But its certainly fair game to compare the implementation complexity the
various transport proposals.
- Matt