Subject: FW: "Final candidate" P1394a Draft 2.1 Available

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:56:51 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: "Final candidate" P1394a Draft 2.1 Available

The "final candidate" draft for the P1394a recirculation ballot, P1394a
Draft
2.1, June 1, 1999, is available for download from
ftp://ftp.symbios.com/pub/standards/io/P1394a. Look in the /Drafts directory

for the file P1394a21.pdf. This draft contains change bars relative to
P1394a
Draft 2.0 (balloted last summer).

The P1394a Ballot Response Committee (BRC) will have its final meeting at
the
end of June. The purpose of the meeting is to ratify the changes made in
P1394a Draft 2.1 and to approve the text of response letters to balloters
who
submitted comments during the first ballot. This final step by the BRC
permits the return of the draft to the IEEE; they will subsequently conduct
a
recirculation ballot on the proposed standard. It is the outcome of the
recirculation ballot, not BRC consensus, that determines final approval or
disapproval as an accredited standard.

Because of IEEE procedural requirements, it is very important that a
thorough
review of P1394a Draft 2.1 be conducted BEFORE the recirculation ballot. If
there are any technical changes necesitated by comments received during with

recirculation ballots, the IEEE would require a THIRD ballot. This is true
even if the changes are noncontroversial and well agreed in the 1394
community.

I think everyone is desirous of timely approval of P1394a as a standard.
PLEASE REVIEW DRAFT 2.1 AS CAREFULLY AS POSSIBLE. Comments, editorial or
technical, may be addressed either to [email-masked] or to me directly.

Regards,

Peter Johansson
Chair, IEEE P1394a BRC

Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94707

(510) 527-3926
(510) 527-3856 FAX

[email-masked]

---

From: Nagaraj G <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:28:34 +0530

Hi,

I went through the "Ch.9" of the "Draft 2.1". The clause 9.25 for
Determination of the root states for the second option to select a "more
capable" node as the root, there needs to be a definition of the hierarchy
to find out this. But where is the hierarchy maintained? Is is maintained in
a CSR? Or distributed in different CSRs & ConfigROM?

If there is a central CSR, what is the offset and where can I find the
definition for the same?
If it is distributed, how to detect the hierarchy? How to detect a "more
capable" node? Is the clause 9.15 in the increasing of the hierarchy? If so
why BCM capability is missing?

There was a suggestion on this list put for a ROOT_CAPABILITIES CSR which
looks better than the current. Or if Peter or anyone can suggest the way to
detect the hierarchy, it should solve the problem.

Hoping to get a reply/solution to the problem.

Thanks & Regards

G. Nagaraj
Senior Software Engineer
EnThink Inc.
37, Castle Street, Ashok Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 025, India
Phone: +91-80-536-7297 Ext: 304
Fax: +91-80-557-6032
[email-masked]
www.EnThink.com

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF IP over 1394 Working Group
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Hattig, Myron
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: FW: "Final candidate" P1394a Draft 2.1 Available

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: "Final candidate" P1394a Draft 2.1 Available

Regards,

Peter Johansson
Chair, IEEE P1394a BRC

Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94707

(510) 527-3926
(510) 527-3856 FAX

[email-masked]

---

From: Nagaraj G <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:11:31 +0530

Hi,

In the clause "9.31" (Abdication by bus manager), in the abdicate bit
explanation the item d) refers to clause 9.24 stating the candidate bus
manager has to meet the requirements of the clause 9.24. The clause 9.24 is
actually the Node_Unique_ID definition which states its entry in ConfirROM
is removed. Is this the clause it is referring to? Or it is referring to
clause 9.25 which states the requirements of the root?

Regards,

G. Nagaraj
Senior Software Engineer
EnThink Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: "Final candidate" P1394a Draft 2.1 Available

Regards,

Peter Johansson
Chair, IEEE P1394a BRC

Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA  94707

(510) 527-3926
(510) 527-3856 FAX

[email-masked]