Re: [802SEC] Precirculation of draft PAR and 5C for P802.1BR
Bob,
Yes, there is a need to do this for data centers whether they use provider bridging or not. The need statement in 5.5 doesn't say that this amendment applies only to networks using Provider Bridging technologies. It says "including those using Provider Bridging technologies" which doesn’t restrict the need to only those networks.
Some approaches to Port Extension would work for bridges based on C-components but wouldn't work with bridges based on S-components (e.g. Provider Bridges). Therefore, we added "including those using Provider Bridging" to indicate that the amendment needed to work for Port Extension in Provider Bridges rather than only in bridges based on C-components.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:05 AM
To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Precirculation of draft PAR and 5C for P802.1BR
Pat:
If I accept this, isn't there a need to do this for data centers absent any provider bridges in the data center?
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Grow, Bob; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Precirculation of draft PAR and 5C for P802.1BR
Bob,
I agree with your grammar corrections.
Regarding 5.5 and 5.6, the need to include Provider Bridging technologies in the solution is not contradictory to the data center focus of the project. It is becoming increasingly common to use Provider Bridges in large data centers. Provider Bridges are used to scale the networks beyond the limits of non-provider bridges, to provide suitable separation between tenants in multi-tenancy data centers and to make use of multipath capabilities in Provider Bridging.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:30 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Precirculation of draft PAR and 5C for P802.1BR
Tony:
Comments on the PAR and 5C.
PAR
5.3 Grammar (suggest deleting "being").
5.5, 5.6 These seem to contradict each other, the Need citing provider bridges yet the Stakeholders being related to data center environments. The discussion of data center in the 5C indicates that the Need probably is wrong.
5C
4.a Grammar (suggest additions -> addition).
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:42 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Precirculation of draft PAR and 5C for P802.1BR
EC Colleauges -
802.1 intends to submit the following draft PAR and 5C to the closing EC
meeting in July for approval to forward the PAR to NesCom:
*
http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2011/new-pelissier-p802-1BRdraft-par-0511.pdf
http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2011/new-pelissier-p802-1BR-draft-5c-0511.pdf
*Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.