Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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

Tom-

You are free to use your one vote to oppose "all ResE PARs" for whatever reason you choose. Also, as a voting member of 802.3 you are guaranteed reasonable access to the forum to express your views.

However, in my opinion, your rationale for opposition is badly flawed on at least two counts:
1) There is no requirement whatsoever in the IEEE P&P to address IP issues at PAR request time. To the best of my knowledge there has been no statement of non-availability of IP for essential material for the proposed project. The IEEE requirement is that assurance letters be provided before submittal to REVCOM (not NESCOM), although "Early Disclosure is encouraged".

2) 802.3 provides layer standards in support of products. It does not do standards for complete products nor does it pretend to do so. Your assertion that 802.3 can not generate a standard because (you assert) that it can't standardize a piece of the required product solution piece that is outside the scope of 802.3 (and arguably outside the scope of 802) is nonsensical. Further, I see no evidence that any one party has a lock on the required technology that you refer to. Therefore, there is a set of choices to be made and those choices are not appropriate for 802.3 work.

I believe that, given these considerations, your only appropriate grounds for objection would be that these problems which are outside 802 scope would have a sufficiently large impact on the 5 Criteria to damage the viability of the project. My own guess is that is unlikely to be true.

Sincerely,

Geoff Thompson


At 08:57 AM 3/12/2005 -0800, Thomas Dineen wrote:
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