Arthur,
The sentence "The reason to do this in 802.3 is that it would probably
not get off the ground in 802.1." causes me severe heartburn. If it is
the "right" thing to do, then it should be done in the "right" place.
It is a very bad argument to suggest that, because the people who are
experts in defining bridges and queues think it is a bad idea, then we
(who define PHYs really well) should squeeze into our architectural
layer.
I know that this was not your sentiment and I hope that you have
incorrectly paraphrased the intention of those people who are making
the proposal.
Perhaps this should be cross-posted to the 802.1 reflector (Hugh dons
flameproof suit and retires for the day...)
Hugh.
Arthur Marris wrote:
David et al,
Meeting at 14:00 PST could be argued as not being truly open as it is
too late for people in Europe and the Middle East to participate.
Anyway I think it is better to advance ideas on the reflector and
your purpose should be to convince people that it is worth doing an
802.3 project.
If I am interpreting Hugh's emails correctly he is saying that there
is nothing within 802.3 scope that needs to be done to address
Residential Ethernet's requirements for latency, jitter and
synchronization. If anyone disagrees with this assertion now would be a
good time to say so.
Also I have the impression that one of the objectives of the study
group is to get work done on adding a separate queue to the MAC to
support RE traffic. The reason to do this in 802.3 is that it would
probably not get off the ground in 802.1. If this is an objective then
the SG should openly state it and get the debate going. Some people in
802.3 will probably object to supporting multiple queues in the MAC,
some might not.
Arthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of David V James
Sent: 12 April 2005 20:45
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [RE] Reasons for the separate yahoo mailing list
Arthur & John,
As the instigator of open informal weekly meetings,
I can perhaps help to clarify the following concerns:
Using a Yahoo mailing list rather than this
one does not help. ...
I wasn't aware there was an active yahoo list. What is the
rationale for a separate list?
Having lots of reflectors where sub-groups have private
discussions unbeknown to the rest of the group might be thought
to raise anti-trust issues.
There is a wide range of backgrounds involved in the RE
project: VOIP, jitter-sensitive AES, consumer, enterprise,...
With this range of cultures, some felt that bimonthly meetings
were insufficient to ensure progress. As such, a few active
participants started weekly teleconference discussions.
The first teleconference was by-invitation only. Concerns were
raised; we quickly agreed that meetings should be open to all.
Thus, the next meeting announcement was sent to the reflector.
I then received several complaints (Bob Grow, Pat Thayer,
Steve Carlson). They apparently felt that only official
SG meetings (with a 30-day notice and approval of the Chair)
should be announced on the reflector.
We disagreed with their logic, but it became easier to
conform than complain. So, we moved our traffic offsite:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/REInterestGroup
Any and all are welcome to join this group and attend the
weekly teleconferences. There are no voting rules, since
no formal votes are taken. However, discussions have
oftentimes been found to be productive.
Note that such reflector restrictions are not IEEE policy,
but apparently an unwritten 802.3 policy. I noticed that
802.17 actively encouraged such adhocs, even though
called on short notice and without WG approval. Such
open interested-parties discussions oftentimes converged,
w/o wasting the time of uninterested parties.
Within the RE environment, however, my powers are limited
to the free facilities that I can easily provide for the
weekly (Thursday 14:00-16:00) informal meetings:
- hamburgers (if you arrive early)
- drinks and pretzels
- wireless internet
- AC power
- teleconference facilities (via freeconference.com)
- conference table
- parking
Maybe yourself/others could assist with the more difficult
task: persuading others to allow announcements/minutes
and material postings on the 802.3 SG RE reflector and/or
IEEE web site?
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@IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of John Grant
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:17 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [RE] yahoo mailing list
At 19:15 12/04/2005 +1000, Varuni Witana wrote:
Arthur Marris wrote:
I also have the following observations to make
i) To see RE through as an 802.3 project you need to engage with
the
wider 802.3 working group. Using a Yahoo mailing list rather
than this
one does not help. If you want to know why people voted against
the
compatibility criterion ask on this mailing list. The vote to
set up the
study group was 41 to 7 so there is support for a task force
and making
changes to the 802.3 spec for RE. Don't squander this good will.
I wasn't aware there was an active yahoo list. What is the
rationale for
a separate list?
Is it the list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/REInterestGroup
referred to in DVJ's posting of 4th March? But that one just
seems to have discussion of when the "unofficial" meetings
should be held so maybe there's another one?
Having lots of reflectors where sub-groups have private
discussions unbeknown to the rest of the group might be thought
to raise anti-trust issues.
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
|