Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: D1.1 Clause 49 State Machine comments

I belive you have tested there will be no other positions will have 64
valid sync_head. I don't know if you have some extreme cases that good_sh_eq_64

always= false, and bad_sh alwyas <32, you will stuck on NO_FRAME_LOCK.
Will this happen?

pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 5. Come back to Figure 49-8 on page 184:
>      I still prefer from 'NO_FRAME_LOCK" to "SLIP" should
> use"sh_valid=false",
> not
>      "bad_sh_eq_32=true".
>       a. You also can see from Figure 36-9 in 802.3-1998, before it enter
>            state, every time when they detect a single code error, it go
> back
> to the beginning state
>            "LOSS_OF_SYNC".
>       b. In your reply to my last comment, you said "It is cleaner to have
> the
> counter
>            controlled by one machine and the new machines are more closely
> interlinked."
>            but in my proposal, there is only one state machine.
> Response: The code you had above is another state machine even if it is
> typed rather than drawn. The state machines I've put into 49-8 generally
> execute the algorithms that were approved in the proposal for acquiring
> lock. You are suggesting different algorithms. I think making a lower
> threshold for the transition from NO_FRAME_LOCK to SLIP has merit, but
> I feel that it is a substantive enough change from what 802.3ae voted to
> adopt that it would need logic track agreement to modify it. I did make
> substantive changes to the Transmit and Receive machines modifying the
> conditions when /E/ was sent, but that was based on September's logic
> track discussion and input.
> Regards,
> --Alex Deng
> -----------------------------------------
> Alex Deng
> Cisco
> 408-853-8170
> adeng@xxxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------