| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Ben: Your opinion agrees with my personal opinion. Many 802 projects do not include registration activity. So, I would not go as far as Adrian did when he recommended all 802 projects answering Yes to PAR 6.1.B. 1. Certainly most 802.3 PHY projects do not include any new registration activity. I would expect the same thing. 802.3 PHY management includes use of the OUI in PHY implementation identification. If the draft only references text as other PHY specifications do, then typically the term OUI would not be in the 802.3 amendment draft, and therefore it would not be flagged for RAC review by editorial staff, and the draft including no new registration activity text eliminates the requirement for the Sponsor to cause RAC coordination to occur. A PAR 6.1.B answer of No is acceptable for most 802.3 PHY amendments. On the other hand, if other 802 WG PHY projects end up requiring modification of previously reviewed text on use of the OUI, then an answer of PAR 6.1.B Yes, is expected, because it is changing the specifications for use of a registry. 2. Some projects in 802.1 may not include registration activity, even though they exchange frames using MAC addresses. The MAC address text is typically in the underlying link technology (e.g., 802.11), and the RAC would not want to review something that simply specified frame transmission. If though, an information transmission specified use of a Standards Group MAC Address, that is a specific and comparatively uncommon specification for MAC addressing necessating RAC coordination. Any text about MAC addresses though will typically cause editorial staff to flag a draft for RAC coordination review even if the PAR form answer was No. 3. Adrain’s recommendation of a Yes is certainly appropriate for all revision projects for 802 standards, though the explanation of the No might be “No new registration activities are anticipated, but the RAC may want to review for correct and current uses of terms”. I agree with Ben we will have amendment projects (e.g., PHY amendments) that only use capabilities already specified in the base standard which presumably have already been reviewed by the RAC. This will certainly be true where the base standard has done a good job of separating architectural layers. (E.g., if the PHY project only specifies PHY management attributes and can reference PHY management protocols, it is unlikely to include registration activity text, even though the referenced capabilities do include the registration activity that requires RAC coordination. For either a Yes or No answer an explanation may be required or appropriate (see the PAR form instruction for registration activity / RAC coordination). —Bob
|