RE: [EFM-P2MP] new opcode for DISCOVERY GATE - an open TR from last meeting
Glen,
The proposal you have made is attempting to fix a cosmetic problem in Draft
1.3 that no longer exists in Draft 1.414.
As a result the last couple of slides in your presentation are not correct.
What I do see in the proposal is a solution looking for a problem.
For every flag we have defined in our protocol we can always define a
separate message:
1) Why not make a separate message for Deregister?
2) Why not make a separate message for Force Report?
3) Why not make a separate message for Keep-Alive?
4) Why not make a separate message for Broadcast OLT Capabilities?
This is an endless debate.
Creating a new message for Discovery Gate adds no new functionality, and
fixes no bug in the draft.
It is a change for the sake of change.
At the stage the standard has reached I expect stability.
We are beyond the deadline to introduce new features.
Change for the sake of change is much worse.
Especially when it is a large change as is introduced in this proposal.
Let's work together to complete the standard by converging on stability, and
not introducing changes at every opportunity.
Ariel Maislos
Editor, P2MP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Glen
Kramer
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:45 PM
To: stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
All,
Currently, we have GATE opcode used for normal GATE messages
as well as for DISCOVERY GATE messages. To distinguish the
two, we have to use an additional Flag = {Normal|Discovery}.
We have one open TR left from the last meeting that suggests
making DISCOVERY_GATE a separate message from the normal
GATE by adding a new opcode. Attached presentation explains
the reasons and benefits of doing this.
Please, let me know if you agree that this is a small but
useful modification, and whether you support the idea.
Thanks,
Glen