Re: [EFM] Bug in definition of OAMDiscoveryState values (Annex 30B)
Hi Bob -
Here's a more detailed historical perspective if it helps.
D3.0: Clause 57 had the correct states, but we had yet to have the state reflected in Clause 30 (or 30B).
D3.1: Responses to comments updated Clause 30/30B, but only with with "send local remote" (missed "send local remote ok") - e.g. we did not get all C57 states reflected in C30/30B. But at least 30/30B were consistent.
D3.2: Response to comment corrected C30 with all C57 states, but we missed updating C30B, which created the inconsistency.
I'm sure the comment was against C30 and not against 30B, so we resolved it but created some inconsistency between 30/30B.
- Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:53 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-EFM@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [EFM] Bug in definition of OAMDiscoveryState
> values (Annex
> 30B)
>
>
> If Matt is correct in when the error crept into the draft, it
> would not
> be classified as an errata. The easiest and fastest way to get this
> fixed is to submit a comment on the upcoming 802.3REVam WG ballot.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@listserv.ieee.org
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> >John Messenger
> >Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 6:09 AM
> >To: STDS-802-3-EFM@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: [EFM] Bug in definition of OAMDiscoveryState values
> >(Annex 30B)
> >
> >Dear EFMers,
> >
> >It seems to me that there is a missing enumerated value in the
> >definition of
> >OAMDiscoveryState in Annex 30B on page 193 of draft 3.3.
> >There are only 5
> >states listed in that definition, with the value for "send
> >local remote OK"
> >missing. In 30.3.6.1.4 (page 49), aOAMDiscoveryState is shown
> >with all 6
> >values (agreeing with the definition in clause 57, figure 57-5
> >on page 231).
> >
> >If you agree with me, and as this is now an approved standard,
> >could this be
> >added to the list of maintenance items please?
> >
> >The consequence of this bug is that you can't tell that an
> >implementation
> >has moved to the "send local remote OK" state. I don't know
> >what value an
> >implmentation of D3.3 should send when in "send local remote OK".
> >
> >Regards,
> > -- John
> >--
> >John Messenger (JMessenger@advaoptical.com)
> >R&D Manager, Software
> >ADVA Optical Networking Ltd.
> >+44-1904-699309
> >www.advaoptical.com
> >
>