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

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



Title:
David,

Forgive my naivete, but I don't see how an annex titled "Bursting and bunching considerations" qualifies in response to "references to the existing standards for provisioning, admission control, policing and QOS."

What I (personally) am looking for is a presentation of the following:

1. The current standards for provisioning, admission control, policing and are...

2. These standards would be applied to our problem in this way...

3. Some or all of these do not meet our requirements because...

4. The originators of these standards have responded...

5. We think changes to 802.3 (or 802.1 - for their discussion) will be better because...

Hugh.

David V James wrote:
Hugh,

In response to the following statement:
  
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
      


Perhaps you missed a previous email?
For convenience, that message from DVJ is repeated below:
  
-----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: Thursday, May 05, 2005 4:17 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [RE] Grand master identifier ==>(evolved to)
      
overprovisioning
  
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
      



In response to the following statement:
  
and then propose something tangibly different.
      

Something tangibly different can also be found in:
     http://www.ieee802.org3/re_study/material/index.html
But, for this purpose, please exclude Annex G, which
illustrates the need but is not part of the solution.

It meets "tangibly different" in the sence that it meets the
"Assuming 75% time-sensitive traffic with arbitrary topology
and loading (subject the the aforementioned 75% rule)"
criteria and existing standards do no.

Its violates "tangible different" in that the working paper
is evolutionary, not revolutionary, heavily leveraging
concepts and techniques from existing standards. But,
I hope that (in this context) this is a desirable trait.

Cheers,
DVJ