Re: [RE] Focus of discussions
John,
Well thought out useful insightful comments. Much appreciated.
I would have stated that appreciation in a public response, but
it seemed better to use the reflector for technical-only topics.
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: Saturday, August 28, 2004 5:16 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Focus of discussions
>>
>>
>> At 20:40 27/08/2004 -0700, David V James wrote:
>> >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
>>
>> It wasn't meant to be. I was looking for guidance from those who
>> are more familiar with the way IEEE802 does things than I am.
>> (My experience of standardisation is mostly with ISO/IEC and
>> AES.) I suppose I'm really asking whether there's a danger that
>> 802 might can the project if we got so interested in the
>> engineering that we forgot to tick all the procedural boxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> [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.
>>
>> Ummm... It seems to me that if they're needed they should be in
>> the standard and everything should support them (or at least
>> there should be a standard way of negotiating whether they're
>> used or not); and if there's no consensus for including them
>> then anything claiming conformance should not require other
>> parts of the system to support them.
>>
>> However, if we think there might be a case for adding them in
>> the future then we should certainly try not to do anything that
>> would close off that option.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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