| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve and all, I hope during the next week or so we will
have something that worse to discuss over the reflector. Regarding SS vs DS; I still believe that
this question is important but secondary in importance compared to architecture. Once we agreed on architecture it will be
clear what is the best next move (I hope..). (may be if each 2P is
independently specified then you will have SS for each 2P which is effectively
DS on all 4P etc.) Meantime until the next meeting, we can summarize
all inputs regarding SS vs DS for reference (which are the presentations shown
last meeting + adding all new inputs received during the meeting) and start
discuss it after we will be on agreement on the architecture. Yair From:
owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Guys, This email is intended for people who are interested in the
DS vs. SS debate, or the classification adhoc. If you’re not one of
those people then please disregard this. Unfortunately, no decision was reached in the This issue is far too important to just let it sit until the
plenary. We must have it all figured out before the plenary, otherwise we
probably won’t reach a decision then either. And, as we all know,
the 802.3at Task Force is already way behind schedule. My question is, how should we proceed from here? So
far, the discussion forum has been the classification adhoc, but this is really
outside their scope. Should the Task Force start a new adhoc, or morph
the classification adhoc into a system architecture adhoc? I think we need to make a decision quickly, and continue the
debate aggressively. Steve |