Re: [RE] What in RE is within 802.3 scope?
Arthur,
>> 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.
Sure, IEEE meetings in the USA could be argued as not being
truly open due to the extended travel requirements from Australia
or the visa limitations for the Chinese. I don't see the point
in such "could be argued" discussions.
The reason for voice discussions is that email is not particularly
efficienct in resolving controversial broad-range topics.
>> If anyone disagrees with this assertion now would be a
>> good time to say so.
So.
>> The reason to do this in 802.3 is that it would
>> probably not get off the ground in 802.1.
(IMHO)The reason for doing this in 802.3 is rather straightforward:
the task is 802.3-specific. I don't believe this has
anything to do with its likelihood of 802.1 success.
MAC queues are done somewhat differently in 802.17, 802.11,
and 802.15, so the precedence for doing 802.xx MAC queues in
the 802.xx group (as opposed to 802.1) makes sense and has
precedence.
Cheers,
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 Arthur Marris
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:09 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: [RE] What in RE is within 802.3 scope?
>>
>>
>> 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
>> >>