Re: [LinkSec] Re: [802.1] P802.1d/D3 to Sponsor ballot
Thomas -
We have used procedural models, written in "C", in the past (examples to be
found in 802.1D:1998); however, that work pre-dates our adoption of the
current style of state machine diagram (examples in RSTP, 802.1s, Link
Aggregation, and 802.1X). Given that we have documented the state machines
in their current form, a problem with adding a procedural model to the
standard is that there is then the need to:
- Show the equivalence between the two descriptions (which, in the case of
any non-trivial set of state machines, is a non-terminating task); or
- Identify one of the descriptions as being definitive and the other as
being merely informative.
Personally, I see no virtue in doing the latter, as it effectively
identifies the informative description as having no value, and therefore
calls into question why we would go to the trouble of putting it into the
document in the first place.
I don't believe that we have established a formal WG position against
including procedural models in addition to state machine descriptions;
however, our practice over the past 4 years or so has been not to include
them, and to use the current state diagram-based style of description.
Certainly, if you were to make such a proposal as a comment on the 802.1d
revision Sponsor ballot (or request one of the balloters to make the
proposal on your behalf), then the WG would have to decide what its
position would be. As to the form of the comment, I strongly suspect that a
comment of the form "Please include a procedural model" without any
proposed text (roughly translated as "I would like you guys to do some
work") would be unlikely to get the buy-in of the working group,
particularly as the 802.1D revision is in the very last stages of its
balloting, and what you are suggesting is a significant piece of work that
would delay the approval of the project. Proposals that come to the WG
complete with warm bodies and/or text that will fix the problem generally
stand a better chance of success; however, the timing is still not good.
If you are planning to attend the Interim, I would suggest that would be a
good opportunity to sound out the views of the 802.1 membership on this
subject.
Regards,
Tony
At 23:05 21/05/2003 +1000, Thomas Jeffry wrote:
>Tony,
>
>Will you be ready to consider a proposition
>of procedural model, formed as a formal
>comment during this revision?
>(B.T.W - what is a format of such comment?)
>
>Or: does the WG definitely, decidedly and
>fundamentally stand up against including
>procedural models?
>
>Regards, Thom
>
> --- Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> wrote: >
> > Thomas -
> >
> > We have no plans at present to put a procedural
> > model of RSTP in the
> > standard, and no-one has proposed doing that as a
> > formal comment during
> > this revision.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > At 18:51 21/05/2003 +1000, Thomas Jeffry wrote:
> >
> > >Tony,
> > >
> > >May I on this stage to ask about a
> > >procedural model of RSTP?
> > >Is WG going to insert as an anex
> > >some procedural model?
> > >The nice rstplib
> > >http://rstplib.sourceforge.net/
> > >of Alex Rozen may be a template for that.
> > >
> > >Regards, Thom
> > >
> > > --- Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> wrote: >
> > > > I have uploaded draft 3 of the 802.1D revision
> > to:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/d-rev-drafts/d3/802-1d-D3.zip
> > > >
> > > > user: p8021
> > > > password: go_wildcats
> > > >
> > > > This Zip file contains the draft and the cover
> > > > letter that will accompany
> > > > it for the Sponsor ballot, which should start
> > soon.
> > > > Please note that only
> > > > those people that signed up to be members of the
> > > > Sponsor ballot group will
> > > > receive the Sponsor ballot announcement.
> > However, if
> > > > anyone that is not a
> > > > member of the Sponsor ballot group has comments
> > to
> > > > make on this draft, I
> > > > will make my usual offer to submit their
> > comments as
> > > > part of my own Sponsor
> > > > ballot response.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
> > >- Check & compose your email via SMS on your
> > Telstra or Vodafone mobile.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >
>
>http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
>- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.
Regards,
Tony