Subject: [rbridge] Comments on:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr aft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:30:22 -0500

Manoj,

	Note that the proposed revision does not refer to 802, but
offers 802.3 and 802.1Q as specific examples of intentionally 
included "Ethernet-like" technologies.

	Actually, after looking into some IETF-related references, 
I'm not convinced I am "re-defining" the term Ethernet.  What I am
doing, that might be a little unusual, is being specific about how
I am using the term.

	Look, for example, at my reference [10].  This reference is
from 1982, and remains reasonably accurate in part because it does
not attempt to narrow the scope of what it means by "Ethernet."

	An alternative approach is to not define Ethernet in this 
document at all, and replace every instance of the word "Ethernet"
with "Ethernet-like."  I am not very comfortable with that as it
leads to very cumbersome wording, so I would very likely remove
the word "Ethernet" entirely in every case where I feel this can
be done.

	Another alternative is to remove the definition entirely and
continue to use the word "Ethernet" - relying on the fact that a
reasonable person would interpret this in the most general sense.

	In that sense, trying to avoid cumbersome wording has to be
weighed against removing information content.

	As a question for clarification, do you disagree with the
current definition of 802?  I got that directly from comments in
the last round of reviews.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Wadekar, Manoj K [mailto:manoj.k.wadekar at intel.com] 
--> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:00 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric; Silvano Gai
--> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
--> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Comments 
--> on:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr 
--> aft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt
--> 
--> Hi Eric,
--> 
--> 	802 is definitely not Ethernet. 802.3 defined Ethernet MAC and
--> Phy functionality. 802.1 (not only Q) defines bridging functionality -
--> not only for Ethernet, for Wireless (802.11, 802.16 etc), for RPR
--> (802.17) - many underlying technologies. 
--> 
--> 	So, trying to define "Ethernet" in a document like this is not
--> only incorrect, it can be very misleading and confusing.
--> 
--> Thanks,
--> - Manoj
--> 
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
--> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
--> Behalf Of Gray, Eric
--> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:46 AM
--> To: Silvano Gai
--> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Comments
--> on:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr
--> aft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt
--> 
--> Silvano,
--> 
--> 	I think that there may be a compromise we can arrive at here.
--> 
--> 	I propose changing the defintion of "Ethernet" to read:
--> 
--> 'Ethernet: In this document the term "Ethernet" is used to represent
-->  Ethernet-like and/or Ethernet-equivalent technologies - explicitly
-->  including 802.3 [802.3 ref], 802.1Q [802.Q ref] and other closely 
-->  related LAN technologies, and NOT explicitly excluding any other 
-->  Ethernet-like and/or Ethernet-equivalent technology that exists, or
-->  may be developed in the future.'
--> 
--> 	Using this definition should clarify that I am not necessarily
--> using the term in the way that some people may feel it 
--> should be used,
--> while clearly stating what I am using the term to mean.  This should
--> also reduce your concern that I am apprently equating Ethernet and 
--> 802 in general.  It also satisfies my intention to be inclusive.
--> 
--> 	How does this sound?
--> 
--> --
--> Eric
--> 
-- [snip] --