| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Good point, Glen. That text would need to be more specific – specifying that the port on Bridge X through which Manager M’s frames transit is the port that is VLC aware. However, the diagram clarifies this and adding such text
would be confusing. --kan-- -- Kevin A. Noll Sr. Director, Systems Architecture Tibit Communications kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxxx From: Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Kevin, I agree in general. But in practice, how should we change our use case descriptions in annex 8A? For example, how would you change this text? Both the Manager and the Station are VLC-unaware. The bridge X nearest to the Manager M is VLC-aware, and so is the bridge Y nearest to the Station S. There can be numerous other bridges
between the bridges X and Y; those bridges may or may be not VLC-aware. -Glen From: Kevin Noll [mailto:kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
In the current text we say that a device is VLC Aware if any port implements the VLC sublayer. Since we do not define any device-wide behaviors, it seems that it would it be more accurate to refer to VLC Aware ports instead of VLC Aware devices. Thoughts? -- Kevin A. Noll To unsubscribe from the STDS-1904-2-TF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-1904-2-TF&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-1904-2-TF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-1904-2-TF&A=1 |