RE: FW: IPoRPR Core Standard Draft

>>3: The 802.17 frame format will almost for sure change next week
>>at the next 802.17 plenary meeting.
>
>Grumble. I was under the impression that the 802.17 spec is more
>or less done. Do you have any indications of what will/may change?

Definitely, but I don't think it is useful to prognosticate in this
very contentious area. :-) I believe that the outcome of next week's
meeting should be very stable, and a basis for working from. It will
likely be labeled Draft 2.0.

>>4.3: Do you think it would be useful to have a method of indicating
>>this? If so, do you think we should do so via the MIB, or what?
>
>Indicating what?

I was referring to indicating the PHY type (and/or padding requirements)
to the client. But, after reading Peter's comments, I retract this. I agree
with Peter that the upper layers should not have to worry about this and
that we should handle this in 802.17. It's too late to comment on this for
next week, but I'll try to remember to get this comment in for next time.
(Or maybe Peter should since he originated the idea.)

jl