Re: [RE] [REInterestGroup] 802.3 Residental Ethernet PAR: any MSC concerns?
Thomas,
As one of the "loud" ones, I wish you would stop persisting in your claim
that the discovery mechanisms that already exist are "proprietary" and
"almost certainly not available to all implementers under RAND (reasonable
and non-discriminatory) terms". I have noted a number of times in your
presence, with your acknowledgement, there are a number of IETF discovery
systems in place (free, and following IETF rules) including SLP (rfc2608 and
its derivatives), DDDS (rfc3958) and multicast-DNS/DNS-SD (www.dns-sd.org,
based on rfc2782). There are *many* others (too many, really).
The industry is moving towards a UPnP-based system which, while based on
various RFCs, is somewhat unique, and is a bit encumbered with IP issues.
This issues, however, have NOTHING to do with RAND (all parties are
committed to RAND ... and indeed to *free* licensing).
There are NO, repeat NO "proprietary" protocols involved in all this. If you
know of one, please be specific. I'm involved with at least three industry
efforts, and I find myself at a loss to understand your insistence that
there is a problem.
Finally, why do we need a layer 2 service discovery protocol to be
"competitive"? With whom? The only kind of discovery a layer 2 protocol
needs is one that is required by the protocol itself ... such as a common
synchronization source or "grand master" as it's called in IEEE 1588. Beyond
that, we are getting into some rather major layering issues ...
On 3/11/05 9:31 PM, "Thomas Dineen" <tdineen@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
> David And All:
>
> Actually your posting dose bring to mind a concern about the Re Par
> Many if not most of the members of the RE Study Group, or at least
> a few loud ones, are against the development of a layer 2 Service
> Discovery protocol for Re. Favoring instead to use previously developed
> proprietary protocols. My concern lies in the concept that such proprietary
> protocols will almost certainly not be available to all implementors under
> reasonable non discriminatory terms. Leaving the future Re Industry in
> something of a patent licensing quagmire. Many have suggested the
> existence of layer 3 standard protocols is sufficient, but I disagree.
> I believe that we need a clean Layer 2 only architecture to be competitive.
> So I advocate the inclusion of an objective probably in the 802.1 Re Par
> to specify a Layer 2 Service Discovery Protocol. Further more I would
> suggest that both the 802.3 and 802.1 PARs be held, without consideration,
> until the issue is resolved.
>
> Thomas Dineen
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Johas Teener ‹ mike@plumblinks.com
http://public.xdi.org/=Michael.Johas.Teener - PGP ID 0x3179D202
--------------------- www.plumblinks.com ----------------------