Re: [RE] [REInterestGroup] 802.3 Residental Ethernet PAR: any MSC concerns?

[Thomas Dineen <tdineen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title:

Michael:

    Where there is smoke there is fire!!!!! Your very behavior on
this issue has caused me to take it up as a concern!

   Your discussion shown below, while interesting, is irrelevant
in that it details a list of layer 3 and above IETF public domain protocols,
some of which by your own admission have patent issues.

   My concern is entirely focused on the requirement for a public
domain layer 2 solution available under reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms. This will allow for low cost and low complexity layer 2 only solutions.
This concept will allow for layer 3 agnostic implementations, or for that
matter implementations without layer 3 and its significant overhead. After all
did that cheap ResE Speaker or cheap ResE Stereo really need an IP Address????
Do these low cost implementations really need to support the entire TCP / IP
Protocol stack?

   I plan to oppose all ResE PARs until this issue is resolved.

Thomas Dineen

Michael Johas Teener wrote:

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