Andy Luque
Open Communications
Monday, July 7, Administrative
Geoff Thompson convened the meeting at 15:35 as IEEE 802.3 chair. Due to the absence of Andy Luque, IEEE 802.3 Secretary, a volunteer was solicited to record the Monday/Tuesday minutes. There have been several mailings since Irvine. These include an IEEE 802.3aa working ballot and two IEEE 802.3z drafts. The second IEEE 802.3z draft has standing with IEEE 802.3.
Geoff reviewed the sign-in procedure, email list maintenance, and rules for establishing voting rights. Participants introduced themselves. The attendance sign-up list was circulated. The attendance list for the July 7-10 Maui plenary is included (Attachment A2).
Voting membership for IEEE 802.3 was reviewed (Attachment A2). There were 170 members of IEEE 802.3. A list of voting members in jeopardy was also presented (Attachment A2).
A list of potential voters was presented (Attachment A2). The following 27 eligible participants from this list expressed interest in becoming voters at this meeting: Don Alderrou, Daniel Brown, Linda Chen, Ed Cady, George Chu, John Cagle, Robert Dahlgren, Daniel Essig, Judy Fuess, Bryan Gregory, Scott Johnson, Richard Knight, Larry Lomelino, Ray Lin, Fu-Ho Lee, Kenneth MacLeod, Denis Murphy, Shankar Mukherjee, Kristian Nelson, Jim Parker, Paul Pace, David Smith, Sadry Tavana, Ken Taylor, Mike Witkowski, Don Wong, and Michael Yam.
The following two members were not on the list but believe they should have voting rights as a result of attending this plenary: Floyd Ross and Ralph Anderson (not on list of eligible members)
The Minutes from the Irvine plenary were distributed.
The Monday/Tuesday Agenda was reviewed (Attachment A1).
MOTION: Approve the Monday/Tuesday Maui Agenda
M:Quackenbush S:Nikolich; Approved by acclamation.
MOTION: Defer approval of the Irvine minutes until Thursday, July 9.
M:Payne S:Nikolich; Approved by acclamation.
Executive Committee Liaison - Geoff Thompson
Paul Nikolich reported on efforts in the IEEE 802 Executive to re-engineer IEEE 802. Geoff Thompson reported on IEEE 802 sponsorship for IEEE members interested in joining the IEEE Standards Association. This offer is only good at this meeting.
A CD, that includes all the IEEE 802 standards in PDF format, will be distributed to voting members this week. Three tutorials are scheduled for Maui. They include a proposed method for Flow Control called PQFC, a new IEEE 802.14 PHY, and ISLAN Protocol Over Wireless.
Future meeting sites were reviewed. Concerns have been raised about the Acapulco site. Considerations for safety and security have been raised. There are also concerns about meeting in resort locations. It was noted that the Acapulco site is a considerable cost savings over other proposed locations.
Several liaison reports were considered.
TR.41 Liaison - Chris Di Minico
Chris reported on the status of TR.41 (Attachment A3). A motion to include 50 micron multimode fiber in the revision to 568-A resulted in no consensus for change. The Fiber Optic Task Group (PN-3523) will develop criteria for evaluation of additional fiber optic connecting hardware designs. These include some of the small form factor optic interconnects that have been presented at other standard bodies.
A proposed addendum to TIA/EIA-569-A specifies parameters needed to allow Cat 5 operation at gigabit data rates. These requirements are intended to further characterize the existing cabling for return loss and ELFEXT. The existing Cat 5 cable plant is expected to meet these new requirements.
A second set of parameters, for enhanced cabling beyond Cat 5, is also under development.
SC25/WG3 Liaison - Alan Flatman
Alan reported on the status of SC25/WG3 (Attachment A4). WG3 met in Buzio, Brazil on June 23-26, 1997. The ISO/IEC 11801 Corrigendum was published in June 1997. The Addendum was split between Part 1 to include return loss changes. Part 2 includes fiber optic bandwidth and requires comment resolution. Cat 6 and enhanced link proposals are being discussed.
The next full meeting is planned for January 1998 in Orlando.
IEEE 802.8 Fiber Optic TAG - Geoff Thompson
Geoff solicited assistance in reviewing the IEEE 802.8 draft. Pat Thaler, Chris Di Minico, Steve Swanson, Ken Taylor, Dan Brown, Tad Szostak, Rick Akins, Paul Kilesar, Mike Hacker, Stefan Meger, and Vince Melendy volunteered to review the document.
VLAN Tag Proposal
Howard Frazier has requested a small project to add an Addendum to document the VLAN tag format for IEEE 802.3. Time will be requested to discuss this at the IEEE 802.1 plenary on Wednesday morning.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:15.
Tuesday, July 8, Administrative
The IEEE 802.3 plenary re-convened at about 8:35. Geoff Thompson chaired the meeting. The attendance list was circulated. Geoff reviewed the voting rules, membership list and members in peril. Six participants expressed interest in becoming voters: Edward Chang, Kelly Coffey, Brian Ramelson, Roy Arhana, Andre Szczepanek, and Claude Hayek.
Dan Dove expressed interest in becoming a voting member but was not on the eligible list.
Geoff made a call for patents. The IEEE requests release letters from holders of patents that apply to the standard being developed. These letters should state that the patent holder is willing to comply with the IEEE patent requirements.
IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules - David Law
David reported on progress on the IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules (Attachment A5). Draft 4.0 of the Operating Rules have been sent out for review. Draft 4.1 is being produced. David's hope is to approve these Operating Rules on July 10, 1997.
State of Standard - David Law
David reviewed the State of the Standard (Attachment A6). IEEE 802.3x and IEEE 802.3y should be published in the same edition. It is awaiting final proof. It is hoped publication will be completed by the November plenary. Work in progress includes IEEE 802.3w, IEEE 802.3z, IEEE 802.3aa, IEEE 802.3ab as well as liaison activity to IEEE 802.1, IEEE 802.12 and IEEE 802.14.
Maintenance & SC6 - Gary Robinson
Gary reported on the status of the Maintenance and SC6 groups (Attachment A7). The Maintenance committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday.
At SC6, Maintenance #4 is in process. Some changes to the main document impact the Maintenance changes. This issue will be addressed on Wednesday. The 100BASE-T Maintenance is expected to go out for draft approval. There are no known issues at this time with 100BASE-T Maintenance. Maintenance for the PICs for 10BASE-5 document requires comment resolution. This is expected to be addressed on Wednesday.
IEEE 802.3x full duplex has been reviewed. The document is being updated for ballot. Howard Frazier requested that the final IEEE book text be incorporated in this updated document. Gary believes SC6 has the flexibility to synchronize the text of these two documents.
100BASE-T2 disposition of comments is complete. The new document is ready to go to ballot.
Two new projects were initiated at SC6, Maintenance #5 to include 100BASE-T Maintenance changes and 1000BASE.
Gigabit Ethernet - Howard Frazier
Howard reported on the status of the Gigabit Ethernet task force (Attachment B). The group met in Ft. Lauderdale from May 14 through May 16, 1997. The group focused on twelve big ticket items. Several of these crossed task force boundaries. Several cross team meetings were held to tackle these problems. A number of key decisions were made.
Draft D3 was produced as a result of the September meeting. Comment resolution has started on D3. The group is working to produce draft D3.1.
Eight "big ticket" items have been identified to be addressed at this meeting. The group is hoping to send out D3.1 for IEEE 802 letter ballot this week followed by comment resolution on the 2nd week of September. The goal would be to seek approval for an LMSC ballot in November.
Presentations and minutes for IEEE 802.3z are available on the web. An HTML form has been developed to input comments on the draft.
100BASE-T - Colin Mick
Colin reported on the status of 100BASE-T (Attachment C). He reported on the Maintenance ballot results. The ballot closed on July 5th. Results are attached.
1000BASE-T - George Eisler
George reported on the status of 1000BASE-T (Attachment D). There has been a great deal of technical work and effort in converging on a technical approach. Rockwell presented a new line code proposal attempting to bridge the gap between existing proposals. Lucent, Broadcom, Comcore, and National announced a merged line code proposal. A work plan is to be discussed this week to try to arrive at consensus.
VLAN Tag Proposal - Howard Frazier
Howard presented a proposal for inclusion of a VLAN tagged frame format into the IEEE 802.3 standard (Attachment E).
Howard reviewed the IEEE 802.1Q/D6. He highlighted the details that specify the VLAN tag format. Howard noted two details not addressed in 802.1Q/D6. First, the standard does not address the maxFrameSize for IEEE 802.3 LANs. The consequence is either non-VLAN-aware stations that must reduce their MTU size by 4 bytes to 1514 or IEEE 802.1Q bridges must violate IEEE 802.3 by propagating frames with 1522 bytes. Second, the length of the RIF may be from 2 to 30 octets. This implies the header can vary from 4 to 30 octets.
Howard pointed out that new MAC implementations are in progress as a result of IEEE 802.3u, IEEE 802.3x and IEEE 802.3z. Howard suggests maxFrameSize is likely to be modified, as the impact of reducing the MTU from end stations is prohibitive. The minFrameSize has been studied by IEEE 802.1 and does not need to be changed. Howard is concerned with the CFI bit and the inclusion of Source-Routing information in IEEE 802.3/Ethernet Frame.
Howard's proposal is for IEEE 802.3 to act in concert with IEEE 802.1 to initiate a new project (tentatively IEEE 802.3ac) to identify the format for VLAN tagged frames carried on IEEE 802.3 LANs irrespective of data rate.
The format would follow IEEE 802.1 with explicit setting of the CFI bit. CFI bit would be preserved/send as zero for IEEE 802.3 LANs with a note in IEEE 802.3ac stating that CFI=1 is outside the scope of the standard. Within 803.3ac, it would specify that VLAN tagged frames are 1522 bytes, irrespective of data rate. The Management Attributes, in Clause 30, accommodate frames of this size. This would be the full extent of the IEEE 802.3ac project.
The floor was opened for questions. There was some discussion about the detail required for the bit definition in the proposal. Mick Seaman commented on the proposal. He expressed support for the 1522 maxFrameSize but raised issue with reserving the CFI bit.
Geoff asked for a show of hands of those interested in participating in a project to standardize than e VLAN tag for IEEE 802.3. A total of 61 participants expressed interest. Of those, 16 were interested in starting work immediately without waiting for the IEEE 802.1 technical plenary.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45.
Thursday, July 10, Administrative
The IEEE 802.3 closing plenary convened at 8:30. Geoff Thompson presided over the meeting. Dave Fifield volunteered to record the minutes. The Thursday Agenda was distributed and reviewed. No changes were requested.
MOTION: To approve the Thursday Maui Agenda (ATTACHEMENT A1)
M:Bob Grow S:Hon Wah Chin; Approved by acclamation.
The voter list was updated. We now have 202 voters. A record for the group.
Geoff indicated that there were no items that require input from the group (motions) to the IEEE 802 Executive.
Geoff reminded everyone about the IEEE/SA membership deal that was being offered, including the IEEE dictionary CDROM.
Future meeting sites were discussed. Some questions had been raised about the suitability of Acapulco as a meeting site and so a re-vote for the meeting site for the November 1999 Plenary was taken.
| Site | Yes | No |
| Hyatt Regency, Acapulco | 56 | 19 |
| Hyatt Regency, Lake Tahoe | 14 | 35 |
| Hyatt Regency, Vancouver | 28 | 12 |
| Hyatt Regency, Maui | 17 | 4 |
| Hyatt Regency, New Orleans | 24 | 7 |
| Hyatt Regency, Kauai | 45 | 2 |
The document distribution method was discussed. The IEEE wanted to know what our thoughts were on the issue of distribution of complimentary books vs. FTP/CDROM/Floppy disk. John Payne asked about the IEEE's motivation. Geoff indicated they don't like the amount of money they're spending. Since they can do "print on demand" for normal book orders, they wanted to know if they could drop the complimentary books for contributors etc. Someone asked if the savings would be passed back to the committees. Answer: No. Then someone asked if the electronic version/s included the right to make multiple copies. Answer: Yes, but only for personal use. A straw poll was then held:
| Electronic document distribution - CDROM | 60 |
| FTP | 10 |
| Hard copy - book (250 only) | 12 |
Do books still need to be given to contributors?
| Yes | 54 |
| No | 8 |
IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules - David Law
David reported on the status of the IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules. There was a meeting Wednesday evening with one participant. David has received 48 more comments on D4.0 and will produce draft D4.1 from these. He is going to place D4.0 on the WWW as the Interim Rules and then ask the committee to accept D4.1 as the formal Operational Rules at the closing of the November 1997 Plenary. He announced that copies of D4.0 plus the comments are available if anyone wanted them. David then presented the major comments for consideration by IEEE 802.3. He will resolve and formalize all comments and publish them prior to the November Plenary.
Maintenance & ISO JTC1/SC6 Liaison - Gary Robinson
Gary reported on Maintenance and ISO JTC1/SC6 related issues. Maintenance #4 item 110 was considered. We have a recommended change. Gary will have the new draft of 110 in about 2 weeks. Anyone interested can email Gary to get a copy before it's submitted. Geoff will announce it's arrival on the reflector.
Ben Brown's maintenance request was considered. It was decided that what was being asked for was already allowed, so it was requested that he make a Interpretation Request. If it cannot be handle this way, it can then become a Maintenance item.
The technical issue in Ben's submission refers to IPG growth. The IPG, after one transmission to the start of the next, can be more than 96 bits (if the IPG counter is 96 bits) due to delays through the MAC and PHY. Ben wanted to adjust the MAC IPG counter to make the IPG on the network be exactly 96 bits.
With regard to SC6, Gary will have the corrected version of this to forward to ISO in one month. He needs a full electronic version to forward. PICS for 10BASE-5 is dealing with disposition of comments. Full Duplex (802.3x) needs full document after it's proofed. T2 needs full document after it's proofed. 1000BASE-X is not ready yet. Could submit "for information" to get things going. Maintenance #5 is not ready yet. Send documents to Gary.
Gigabit Ethernet - Howard Frazier
Howard reported on the status of the Gigabit Ethernet. The group met Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Concentrated on 8 "Big Ticket Items" detailed in minutes. Resolved nearly 200 comments.
Key decisions:
Fiber Link Distances were discussed. Based on the results of modal bandwidth investigations in TIA FO- 2.2, and thanks in no small part to the dedication of certain members of the Task Force, 802.3z reports that the maximum link distances for 1000BASE-SX and 1000BASE-LX will be specified as follows:
IEEE 802.3z also concluded, by a vote of 71-7-12, that these distances, along with supporting information in clause 38, satisfy project objectives 11b, 11c and 13.
Several questions followed:
Q. 160MHzKm or 200MHzKm?
A. 160MHzKm specified with a note to say that 200MHzKm meets this criteria
Q. Do you define distance for 200MHzKm?
A. Using the table references and Annex 38c you can determine distance for 200MHzKm. 440m is a minimum, worst case number, the real world is better, so 200MHzKm should work OK.
Q. Can we get TIA to better characterize 62.5um MMF so we can test it better?
A. TIA is aware of improvements that can be had by better test methodologies. We'll draft a memo to TIA to tell them our needs for better fiber characterization.
In a major decision, IEEE 802.3z by a unanimous (105-0-4) vote decided to request that IEEE 802.3 issue a working group ballot with draft D3.1
Ballot Plans were discussed. Plan to request authorization to conduct ballot primarily using web based ballot form and comment collection from email. Snail mail will still be OK. Plan to open ballot on 7/24/97 and close on 9/2/97 (40 days in-hand). Request authorization from IEEE 802.3 to conduct meetings, develop responses to comments, and administer re-circulation ballots as necessary. Will provide opportunity for IEEE 802.3 to review results of ballot prior to a request to forward for LMSC sponsor ballot
The plans for Next Meeting were presented:
September 8-11, 1997 - London, UK - hosted by 3Com
Strand Palace Hotel, Strand, London UK WC2R 0JJ
Phone +44-171-379-4737 (until 7pm GMT)
GMT = EST + 5, or GMT = PST + 8)
Fax +44-171-257-9025
Rate 117 UK pounds single, 131 UK double, including VAT and full English breakfast
Cutoff date August 7, 1997
Group name - IEEE 802.3z
Week of September 22, 1997 - Silicon Valley, CA
Probably the Biltmore Hotel, Santa Clara, CA
At Highway 101 and Montague Expressway
At least 30 days notice will be given
TECHNICAL MOTION: That the responses to comments on IEEE 802.3z/D3 be accepted, and that they be incorporated in draft D3.1, with editorial refinement as necessary. Further, that IEEE 802.3 requests that its chair issue a working group ballot with IEEE 802.3z/D3.1, and, that IEEE 802.3 authorizes the IEEE 802.3z Gigabit Task Force to conduct meetings and administer re-circulation ballots as necessary to resolve comments received during the working group ballot.
M:Howard Frazier S:Rich Seifert;
Y:80 N:0 A:0; Approved
The motion passed at 10:14am.
Howard then spoke a few words about sponsor ballots. Membership in IEEE or the CS is required. You must be a registered member of the ballot "pool". He handed out sponsor ballot pool forms to anyone who requested one.
Maintenance 100BASE-T (802.3aa) - Colin Mick Colin reported on the status of 100BASE-T Maintenance. Several disapproves have been received from the ballot.
Bob Grow's IEEE 802.3y comments will be dealt with editorially off-line.
The 6 disapprove votes are technical (changes need to be made optional), so when resolved, we will need a re-circulation ballot.
Colin stated that no motion was required to progress this working group.
1000BASE-T - George Eisler
George reported on the status of the 1000BASE-T task force. There has been lots of technical discussion. There have been two presentations based on previous work with new ideas added. The group has not had much time to consider these "proposals". Certainly, there has not been time to do any simulation work.
Overall, George felt the goal of converging on a single line code had failed, but that a good deal of useful work on the differences between the baseband and passband camps was achieved. The overall number of proposals had shrunk to 3. George stated that he sensed no political will for the groups to get together.
George outlined the work to be done:
At the close of the meeting on Wednesday, a straw poll was held to gauge the feelings of the group towards baseband and passband in general. George felt the results "showed no consensus" and that the contributing companies should "work together on the table entries and converge".
An IEEE 802.3ab interim meeting will be held in conjunction with the IEEE 802.3z interim in London, September 8-10 (3 days).
VLAN TAG Proposal (802.3ac?) - Howard Frazier
Howard reported on the VLAN TAG proposal. He reported on the joint session with IEEE 802.1 at the technical plenary. Howard gave them the same presentation that he'd given to IEEE 802.3 Tuesday. This was followed by 2 hours of discussion.
The PAR and 5 Criteria were considered. A group of concerned contributors spent a considerable amount of time preparing the draft PAR and 5 criteria. He did not have copies to hand out, but promised that they would be put on the web by the following Monday.
Howard presented the main elements of the PAR.
Title:
Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) frame format extensions for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks (VLAN) tagging on IEEE 802.3 networks
Scope of Proposed Project:
a) Specification of IEEE 802.3 frame format when carrying Virtual Bridged Local Area Network (VLAN) tag information
b) Necessary adjustments to IEEE 802.3 Media Access Control (MAC) parameters to accommodate Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tagged frames
c) Necessary adjustments to IEEE 802.3 standard clause 30 Management Attribute definitions to accommodate Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tagged frames
Purpose of Proposed Project: The purpose of this project is to adjust the IEEE 802.3 frame format to align IEEE 802.3 standard with IEEE 802.1Q.
9b. Are you aware of any other standards or projects with a similar scope? Yes (attach explanation).
IEEE 802.1Q also has specifications for Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tag information within its scope. The project proposed in this PAR will address related items which are within the scope of responsibility of Working Group 802.3.
Rich Seifert then presented the slides on the 5 criteria:
1. Broad Market Potential
61 participants within the IEEE 802.3 WG have expressed interest in working on this project.
2. Compatibility with IEEE Standard 802.3
The express purpose of this project is to restore compatibility between IEEE 802.1 Bridges and the IEEE 802.3 MAC, necessitated by the development of IEEE 802.1Q tags.
This project will not affect compatibility of IEEE 802.3 networks with respect to the IEEE 802 Functional Requirements or IEEE 802.2 LLC Services.
3. Distinct Identity
The proposed project is the only one addressing the issue of modifications to the IEEE 802.3 frame format, MAC parameters, or management attributes.
4. Technical Feasibility
There is no perceived technical challenge. Implementations already exist that support the goals of this project.
5. Economic Feasibility
This project will have no measurable impact on component or system cost.
Q. With respect to Criteria 3, IEEE 802.3z is changing MAC parameters, so this isn't strictly true is it?
A. Correct.
This prompted a change to Criteria 3 to add the words "with respect to the impact on VLAN tags" to the end of the sentence.
Q. Don't we need some objectives as well?
A. No. At the IEEE 802 level, only a PAR is required, at the IEEE 802.3 level only a PAR and 5 Criteria. Only at the task force level are we required to have a PAR, the 5 Criteria, and a list of objectives.
Comment: I'm not comfortable with the "pre-ordainment" of the objectives since there are contentious issues that are still under discussion.
Comment: I'm not happy with the purpose statement "format" since we're only changing maxFrameSize.
Comment/Q: Geoff said "there's no need to change the format, only the length", but the presenters interpreted it the other way. Does the task force have too much authority to change the frame format?
TECHNICAL MOTION: the PAR and 5 Criteria be approved and forwarded to IEEE 802 Executive Committee etc.
M: Howard Frazier S: Pat Thaler; Out of Order
The chair ruled this motion was out of order and insisted that it be divided into separate motions for each of the 5 Criteria and the PAR.
TECHNICAL MOTION: to accept criteria #1 as written.
M: Frazier S: Thaler; Y: 71 N: 0 A: 0; Approved
Friendly amendment to change "Fast Ethernet" to "100BASE-T". It was accepted. Criteria #1 now reads:
1. Broad Market Potential
There are many new MAC and Switch implementations being developed, driven by recent and current projects within IEEE 802:
These are all driving the need to solidify a revised frame format, maxFrameSize parameter, and associated management attributes.
61 participants within the IEEE 802.3 WG have expressed interest in working on this project.
TECHNICAL MOTION: to accept criteria #2 as written.
M: Frazier S: Thaler; Y: 71 N: 0 A: 0; Approved
Friendly amendment to change "restore" to "ensure continued". It was accepted. Criteria #2 now reads:
2. Compatibility with IEEE Standard 802.3
The express purpose of this project is to ensure continued compatibility between IEEE 802.1 Bridges and the IEEE 802.3 MAC, necessitated by the development of IEEE 802.1Q tags.
This project will not affect compatibility of IEEE 802.3 networks with respect to the IEEE 802 Functional Requirements or IEEE 802.2 LLC Services."
TECHNICAL MOTION: to accept criteria #3 as written.
M: Frazier S: Thaler; Y: 53 N: 0 A: 9; Approved
This motion generated a debate on whether IEEE 802.1 was doing the same work and if the MAC was going to be "required" to check packet length. A friendly amendment to add "with respect to the impact of VLAN tags." was accepted.
Another friendly amendment proposed an additional new paragraph. "In order to increase the IEEE 802.3 frame size only for frames with VLAN tags, IEEE 802.3 must address Frame Format in addition to Frame Size." It was initially accepted. Upon further consideration, the paragraph was removed by another friendly amendment. It did not contribute to showing a distinct identity.
Criteria #3 now reads:
3. Distinct Identity
The proposed project is the only one addressing the issue of modifications to the IEEE 802.3 frame format, MAC parameters, or management attributes with respect to the impact of VLAN tags."
TECHNICAL MOTION: to accept criteria #4 as written.
M: Frazier S: Thaler; Y: 59 N: 0 A: 1; Approved
TECHNICAL MOTION: to accept criteria #5 as written.
M: Frazier S: Thaler; Y: 55 N: 0 A: 5; Approved
TECHNICAL MOTION: to accept the PAR as written:
M: Frazier S: Thaler; Y: 55 N: 1 A: 4; Approved
A friendly amendment to remove the word "format" from the title and add in b) after the word "parameters" "(e.g. maxFrameSize)". It was accepted.
Scott Mason wanted to limit the scope of the PAR by adding "if necessary" to a). The mover and seconder did not agree. Scott wanted to make part a) look like parts b) and c).
TECHNICAL MOTION to Amend: Limit the scope of the PAR by adding "if necessary to a)". It should read "a) Necessary adjustments to IEEE 802.3 frame format to accommodate Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tagged frames."
M: Scott Mason S: Stephen Haddock; Y: 9 N: 21 A: 22; Not Approved
John Payne called the question on the original motion. There were no objections to calling the question, so it was called. The PAR Title, Scope and Purpose thus read:
Title:
Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) frame extensions for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks (VLAN) tagging on 802.3 networks
Scope of Proposed Project:
The following items are within the scope of this project:
a) Specification of IEEE 802.3 frame when carrying Virtual Bridged Local Area Network (VLAN) tag information.
b) Necessary adjustments to IEEE 802.3 Media Access Control (MAC) parameters (e.g. maxFrameSize) to accommodate Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tagged frames.
c) Necessary adjustments to IEEE 802.3 standard clause 30 management attribute definitions to accommodate Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tagged frames.
Purpose of Proposed Project:
The purpose of this project is to adjust the IEEE 802.3 frame format to align IEEE 802.3 standard with IEEE 802.1Q.
9b. Are you aware of any other standards or projects with a similar scope? Yes (attach explanation).
IEEE 802.1Q also has specifications for Virtual Bridged Local Area Network tag information within its scope. The project proposed in this PAR will address related items which are within the scope of responsibility of Working Group 802.3."
Howard then gave the proposed plans for progressing this project. His goal was to get it on REVCOM's June '98 agenda. Once (if) the IEEE 802 Executive passes the PAR, then we can form a Task Force.
The chair was concerned that we get some discussion going in the meantime. Howard said they'd at least have a draft/discussion document by the September Interim meeting in London. The chair said that we need to have a preview document by November and set aside some discussion time at the Plenary for this.
TECHNICAL MOTION: Forward to IEEE 802 Executive for consideration, and request that PAR be submitted to NESCOM.
M: Howard Frazier S: Pat Thaler; Y: 58 N: 0 A: 1; Approved
Administrative - Geoff Thompson
The chair restated that the next meetings would be held September 8-11, 1997 for IEEE 802.3z and IEEE 802.3ab, in London as previously announced and that there would probably be an IEEE 802.3ac (VLAN tags) meeting in between now and then and also at the November Plenary in Montreal.
The IEEE 802.3 plenary meeting adjourned at 12:25.
Respectfully submitted November 3, 1997.
Andy Luque
IEEE 802.3 Secretary
Open Communications
131 McCartney Dr.
Bend, Oregon, 97701
(541) 389-6512
andy_luque@hotmail.com
Additional note to SPA/WEB version only.
The attachments which form an essential portion of the minutes are only
available in paper form. They will be distributed as part of the complete
minutes package at the November '97 meeting. They are also available as part
of the paper minutes package which can be obtained from the address below.
IEEE Document Distribution Service
Alpha Graphics #35
Attention: P. Thrush
10201 North 35th Ave.
Phoenix AZ 85051 USA
Phone: 602 863-0999
FAX: 602 866-8801