|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I, for one, am not comfortable with such an objective.
While I have no desire or intention to define a PHY that
cannot transport jumbo frames, I think that the adoption
of such an objective would be harmful to the project.
The objectives for a project provide a concise set of goals
that must be met to satisfy the overall purpose of a new
standard. What purpose would such an objective serve?
Project objectives are usually widely published and discussed.
I am very concerned that the adoption of an objective mandating
physical layer support for jumbo frames will be misinterpretted.
I also think that such an objective will distract the group, just
as it has already caused a distraction on this reflector. Jumbo
frames have nothing to do with higher speed operation per se,
aside from the fact that they are brought up every time we do
a higher speed study group.
The HSSG has a pile of very important and very difficult issues
to address. In the grand scheme of things, jumbo frames are
below the threshold of things we should be concerned about.
From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: [HSSG] Jumbo Frame Discussion
There has been considerable discussion regarding jumbo frames.
As a reminder to the group, the motion regarding the formation of the SG is below:
Move the IEEE 802.3 Working Group requests formation of a “Higher Speed Study Group” to evaluate definition of greater than 10 Gb/s MAC data rate and related PHY capability to IEEE Std 802.3. The Study Group may recommend one or more PARs.
From this motion there is nothing about studying MAC operation in general, nothing about greater MAC efficiency or anything related to jumbos, therefore an objective regarding jumbo frames would be out of scope. However, as Howard alluded to, I thought it might be of potential use to let the conversation proceed to see if something useful might come out of it.
Come September we will need to hear presentations that are relevant to possible objectives for the project. It is clear that a jumbo frame objective would be inappropriate, but Geoff’s suggestion, which I believe to be inline with Joel’s initial request, is potentially a useful as a point of discussion as a possible objective –
PHYs and physical layer specifications shall not be done in any way that precludes transmission of frames up to XX Kbytes in length.
This would be within the HSSG scope. I would like to hear further feedback on this idea, and encourage those interested in such an objective to consider presenting material for the Study Group’s consideration.