Subject: Re: Re: Comments to draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-00

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:52:17 -0500

LLoyd> I'd say that handling forwarding of PAUSE frames and the semantics of
LLoyd> IEEE 802.3x flow-control is an NSP matter, 

I'd agree with that. 

Lloyd> and entirely out of scope for PWE3. 

Since each  NSP needs  to know  what the other  is doing,  I think  it's too
strong a claim to say that this  is "entirely out of scope".  Of course, the
spec  as written  does seem  to rule  out the  use of  a PW  to  connect two
repeaters, but I doubt that that's a problem.

---

From: Muneyoshi Suzuki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:49:17 +0900

Lloyd,

> Muneyoshi Suzuki is quoted as saying:
> $ However, according to section 3.16 draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-01.txt,
> $ the Ethernet wire does not forwards PAUSE frame, this is an evidence that
> $ the wire terminates MAC layer
> or that the proposal in draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-01.txt is
> in error, which, since it violates minimum intervention...

I don't claim it is an error. I think:

If a PW service emulates a LAN segment or LAN segments concatenated by 
repeaters, it must not terminate PAUSE frame.
If a PW service emulates a Bridge or Bridged LAN, it must terminate 
PAUSE frame.

Thanks,

Muneyoshi Suzuki