Re: [RE] Focus of discussions
John,
The reason for my stimulating email conversations was twofold:
1) To answer the following requirements, some form of strawman
proposal seemed useful:
- Compatibility with the rest of 802.3
- Distinct identity
- Technical feasibility
2) I get bored with precedural issues and can't wait for real
technical work to unfold.
While the second item isn't really necessary, its much more fun,
interesting, challenging, and a match to my engineering talents.
While I suppose someone has to do it, at least within the 802
environment, I much prefer to do the work, as opposed to working
on proposals to do the work(:>).
As to:
>> Do we need to decide at this stage which speeds to support,
>> whether to support jumbo frames [come to think of it, are jumbo
>> frames allowed by 802.3 anyway?], whether to use additional pairs,
>> etc?
I would say yes, since it affects the items mentioned in (1).
I think you were implying "no", but it was a bit too subtle for
an email conversation. I really couldn't tell if that was
a rhetorical question (seemed to be, on the 5th reading),
so less subtle text might be more effective in the absence of
body language and the presence of many non-native English
speakers.
>> [come to think of it, are jumbo frames allowed by 802.3 anyway?]
Don't know if they are allowed by the "official" 802.3, but they
are mandated by a significant numbers of customers, or so I hear.
And, some suppliers have to be "profitable" as well as "official".
I'm not the one to judge the scope of this support within the
industry, but would favor jumbo frames if the commercial needs
are widespread. After all, this is part of the five criteria:
- Economic feasibility
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Grant
>> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:27 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [RE] Focus of discussions
>>
>>
>> How far into the detail of the eventual standard are we supposed
>> to go at this stage? As I understand it, the current task is to
>> develop the PAR + 5 criteria in time for the November plenary,
>> the criteria being:
>>
>> - Broad Market Potential
>> - Compatibility with the rest of 802.3
>> - Distinct Identity
>> - Technical Feasibility
>> - Economic Feasibility
>>
>> Will the scope, for instance, include
>>
>> (a) "ability to convey time-critical data" or
>> (b) "ability to convey the time-critical data required for [list
>> of applications]" or
>> (c) something more specific
>>
>> Do we need to decide at this stage which speeds to support,
>> whether to support jumbo frames [come to think of it, are jumbo
>> frames allowed by 802.3 anyway?], whether to use additional pairs, etc?
>>
>> Some of these choices could, of course, affect the feasibility
>> (e.g. max size 10 Mbit/s frames are 1.2 msec long so if you're
>> not allowed to fragment them for compatibility reasons you can't
>> have synchronous frames every 125 usec).
>>
>>
>> John Grant
>> ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
>> | || || || | | || || || || |
>> | N || i || n || e | | T || i || l || e || s |
>> |___||___||___||___| |___||___||___||___||___|
>>
>> Nine Tiles Networks Ltd, Cambridge, England
>> +44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
>> http://www.ninetiles.com