RE: Interface reality check
Ben and Rich (et al):
1. Firstly, my profound complements. This thread, primarily between the two
of you, has been the epitome of what I have hoped for in reflector
communication. The perspectives and positions have been diverse but the
communication has clearly been "respectful and dignified." Kudos! Applause!
I, and I assume many others, have avoided entering the discussion for fear
of potentially sidetracking the progress you are making in behalf of us all.
But, I would like to add a single thought and then exit the discussion again
in hopes of NOT exciting an out of context debate at this time on this
2. Regarding the /O/, Ben commented:
> I agree the code space is available and that it should be held
> reserved. I think a healthy debate is yet to be waged on the virtues
> or follies of explicitly supporting other standards (Fibre Channel
> and Infiniband) within "ae".
We should not be asking allegiance of any of our members to any standard but
Ethernet (802.3). Duh, right (rhetorical question = RQ)?
From the perspective of our mission (PAR approval) and objectives, there is
no justification for trying to write some other committee's standard.
But, from the perspective of our 5 criteria, enabling other standards to
benefit from our work can help 802.3ae better achieve "Broad Market
Potential," "Economic Feasibility," and "Technical Feasibility."
Therefore, this "discussion" becomes one of a normal cost-benefit analysis.
Duh, right (RQ)? I would argue that we think in terms of tolerating that
which is not obnoxious. The "obnox-o-meter" is, of course, a rather
subjective measuring device.
In conclusion, while "explicitly supporting other standards" may peg medium
to high on the obnox-o-meter, rewording this to "enabling, or at least not
impeding, other standards" may not even move the dial. The benefit side of
the equation is, I assume, obvious.