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

RE: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test pattern




Ben, Tom

Yep that clears it up a bunch.  Much Better.

When will D3.2 be available?  I am concerned 
about other changes from D3.1.

Concerning the 50.3.8 draft I received, there is no 
mention of the SONET scrambler.  My assumption at 
this point is that the scrambler operates normally
starting at the J1 octet. Perhaps a comment to this 
regard would make it definite.  

Thanks

Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Alexander [mailto:Tom_Alexander@pmc-sierra.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:24 PM
> To: 'Ben Brown'; Nepple, Bruce
> Cc: 802.3ae
> Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test
> pattern
> 
> 
> Ben and Bruce,
> 
> This is correct. Subclause 50.3.8 (the test pattern 
> generator/checker) was completely rewritten from D3.1 to 
> D3.2. If Bruce was reading D3.1, then I fully understand his 
> concerns; however, they should be alleviated after D3.2 is circulated.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> - Tom Alexander
> WIS Scribe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@amcc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:49 PM
> To: Nepple Bruce
> Cc: 802.3ae
> Subject: [802.3ae] Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test pattern
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> D3.1 is the current draft though D3.2 should be available
> soon. 50.3.8 should be changed with D3.2 (Tom Alexander,
> please comment here) and replaced with a document developed
> by Tim Warland as part of the SJTP ad-hoc process.
> 
> See the following referenced document from the 802.3ae July
> presentation URL that will be used to replace this section.
> I hope this helps.
> 
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/jul01/warland_1
> _0701.pdf
> 
> I admit not reviewing this D3.1 section with much scrutiny,
> knowing (or at least expecting) that it would be replaced
> in the next draft.
> 
> Regards,
> Ben
> 
> "Nepple, Bruce" wrote:
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > In reading P802.3ae/D3.1, Figure 50-15 shows the process
> > of CID pattern generation and reception as being
> > outside the normal WIS transmit and receive process.
> >
> > In addition, the third to the last paragraph in
> > 50.3.8 describes the process of replacing the CID
> > pattern with the "default" pattern before sending it
> > to the WIS receive process.
> >
> > Perhaps this is an old draft?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bruce Nepple
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@amcc.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:20 AM
> > > To: Nepple, Bruce
> > > Cc: stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: [802.3ae_Serial] B1 Parity and CID test pattern
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > Where did you get the information that the CID was "hacked"
> > > onto the SONET frame rather than inserted into the frame
> > > generation and made part of the B1 parity calculation?
> > > Is this lifted from a presentation or email thread? I
> > > don't recall seeing this as part of Tim Warland's draft
> > > document.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ben Brown
> > > Chair of Serial Jitter Test Patterns AD-HOC
> > >
> > > "Nepple, Bruce" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am arriving a bit late in the game.  I've tried to
> > > > reconstruct the history of the jitter test "stuff"
> > > > from the archives, but there is precious little
> > > > information there.
> > > >
> > > > It appears that the current implementation of the WIS CID
> > > > jitter test pattern is "hacked" onto an existing
> > > > SONET frame, and depends on the receiver having knowledge
> > > > of the "default bytes" in order to replace the CID locations.
> > > >
> > > > Rather than create a separate framing/deframing mechanism
> > > > to insert or remove CID pattern bytes without affecting
> > > > parity, I would rather just make use of existing
> > > > framer resources (in my multi-protocol environment).
> > > > Why can't the CID bytes just be part of the legal WIS
> > > > overhead, rather than "hacked" on to an existing frame?
> > > >
> > > > The whole idea of filling those bytes from different
> > > > resources (avoiding parity logic) and then replacing
> > > > those bytes upon reception to make parity work seems
> > > > like extra work.  I'd be interested in knowing the
> > > > rationale behind that decision.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Nepple
> > > > Network Elements, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Benjamin Brown
> > > AMCC
> > > 2 Commerce Park West
> > > Suite 104
> > > Bedford NH 03110
> > > 603-641-9837 - Work
> > > 603-491-0296 - Cell
> > > 603-626-7455 - Fax
> > > 603-798-4115 - Home Office
> > > bbrown@amcc.com
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >
> 
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Benjamin Brown
> AMCC
> 2 Commerce Park West
> Suite 104
> Bedford NH 03110
> 603-641-9837 - Work
> 603-491-0296 - Cell
> 603-626-7455 - Fax
> 603-798-4115 - Home Office
> bbrown@amcc.com
> -----------------------------------------
>