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

I agree with Jim. Further more, as a veteran of the 802.11/Wi-Fi, 802.15/WiMedia and other technologies -- we should expect to eventually be aligned with an industry organization that will provide "best practices" as well as an interoperability certification program. My gut tells me that we will cross paths with the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) at www.dlna.org. They are, currently, using UPnP for discovery, as far as I know. Just something to consider.

Regards,

Yoram.

Yoram Solomon
Director
Strategic Business Development
Connectivity Solutions Group
Texas Instruments
12500 TI Boulevard, MS 8731
Dallas, Texas 75243
P.O. Box 660199, MS 8731
Dallas, Texas 75266
Direct: (214) 480-4592
Fax: (972) 761-5944
yoram@ti.com

From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Jim Battaglia
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 2:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [RE] [REInterestGroup] 802.3 Residental Ethernet PAR: any MSC concerns?

As another one of the "loud" ones, I absolutely agree with Michael's points here. I see no reason why we need to "re-invent the wheel" in areas where UPnP already covers the necessary discovery protocols. Just about everyone in the CE, PC/IT, and mobile industries are standardizing around UPnP for home networking, and the last thing we need is another overlapping protocol. In fact, I would recommend that those who are interested in making RE viable, should reach out to the UPnP community to make sure that what we are planning on doing with RE is as compatible as possible with the work being done within UPnP Forum. As a member of both RESG and UPnP, I can assure you that UPnP protocols are available on at least RAND terms and in many cases RAND-Z (i.e. no royalties).

In any case, I see no reason to hold up our PAR while we continue to debate this issue. That would seem to me as counter-productive.

Jim

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


--
---------------------------------------------------------------
         Michael D. Johas Teener ‹ mike@plumblinks.com
http://public.xdi.org/=Michael.Johas.Teener - PGP ID 0x3179D202
--------------------- www.plumblinks.com ----------------------

--
Jim Battaglia
Digital Entertainment Networking
Pioneer Research Center USA, Inc.
101 Metro Drive, Suite 264
San Jose, CA 95110-1343
408-437-1800x203
408-437-1717 (fax)