Re: [RE] Grand master identifier ==>(evolved to) overprovisioning

[Hugh Barrass <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx>]

Title:

David (and others),

Some personal advice from me to anyone who wishes to propose a change to an existing standard:

The burden of proof should always be on those who want to make the change. It is necessary that the Study Group work should include serious analysis of the current standards to demonstrate that there are deficiencies to be addressed. If there is no one in the study group with sufficient expertise to explore current standards then I question whether there is anyone with sufficient expertise to make new standards to replace them. I expect that you, or someone in the study group, should find the references to the existing standards for provisioning, admission control, policing and QOS; demonstrate why they don't meet your needs and then propose something tangibly different.

In short, I will not be satisfied by the demand, "We don't understand current standards, so we want to make new ones." What I am looking for is of the form, "We are experts in the current standards and we see the need for new ones to meet our requirements."

Hugh. < speaking strictly for myself >

David V James wrote:

Hugh,

Thanks for insightful throughs. We certainly agree on
plug-and-go/plug-and-play(:>), as opposed to plug-and-pray(:<).


  

Personally, I believe that the existing standards for provisioning,
admission control, policing and QOS could be implemented easily and
cheaply in a residential environment.
      

Which ones, in particular, and how would they be used?
Its hard to test such an hypothesis, without reference material
and assumptions.


  

If this is not the case, then proof should be presented to make
a case for new standards.
      

Assuming 75% time-sensitive traffic with arbitrary topology
and loading (subject the the aforementioned 75% rule), then
I believe proofs are contained within "Annex G" of:
  http://www.ieee802.org3/re_study/material/index.html


  

Either way, I think there is a need for some architectural
specification to ensure that RE products have appropriate
capabilities to allow plug in and go operation.
      

Agreed! Although some of us use the term plug-and-play.
I assume (correct me if not) that these mean the same thing.