RE: draft of a core protocol spec
"Glenn Parsons" <[email protected]> Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:36:28 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.iporpr |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C28909.9BE690C8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Frank, You have noted the various minor corrections to the details on RPR that you have included in this draft. However, I have a more fundamental concern. As we are doing for the RPR MIB, I believe that the specification for RPR should be definitively in IEEE 802.17. That is, your proposed document (or any IETF document) should not include any details of RPR that could be construed as being a definition. Even if a subset of the RPR definition looks the same, I would suggest that it may be interpreted differently. That is something we want to avoid. This document should only describe the payload format when it is IP, the details of RPR are irrelevant (since it is a broadcast media). As such, I would recommend that all of the RPR pedagogy (all of section 3 and most of 4) be deleted. Cheers, Glenn. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C28909.9BE690C8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2655.35"> <TITLE>RE: [IPORPR] draft of a core protocol spec</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Frank,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">You have noted the = various minor corrections to the details on RPR that you have included = in this draft. However, I have a more fundamental concern. = As we are doing for the RPR MIB, I believe that the specification for = RPR should be definitively in IEEE 802.17. That is, your proposed = document (or any IETF document) should not include any details of RPR = that could be construed as being a definition. Even if a subset = of the RPR definition looks the same, I would suggest that it may be = interpreted differently. That is something we want to = avoid. This document should only describe the payload format when = it is IP, the details of RPR are irrelevant (since it is a broadcast = media).</FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">As such, I would = recommend that all of the RPR pedagogy (all of section 3 and most of 4) = be deleted.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Cheers,</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Glenn.</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C28909.9BE690C8--