Re: [bmwg] WG Adoption Call for draft-vassilev-bmwg-network-interconnect-tester-07

[Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]>]

On 14/12/2021 10.33, t petch wrote:

> On 13/12/2021 17:46, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>> Hi Tom and Gabor,
>>
>>
>> On 13/12/2021 13.08, Gábor LENCSE wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> To be honest, I haven't read the draft.
>>>
>>> I just wonder, if the entire draft is about CSMA/CD. As time passes,
>>> Ethernet is practically used full duplex, so I think it should be of
>>> primary interest.
>>
>>
>> The draft is not about CSMA/CD in particular. It is targeting any
>> networking technology where the data plane in any of the interface
>> directions can be represented as a stream of octets. And where the
>> stream of octets consists of a sequence of 1. frames and 2. interframe
>> gaps.
>
> I continue to oppose adoption until the I-D has a less clunky and more 
> accurate title.
>
> Reading YANG modules in the I-D, it is clear that the focus is on such 
> as IEEE802, IEEE1588, MAC address, Ethernet, burst, interframe gap etc 
> so while the approach is valid for a number of protocols there are 
> plenty more for which it is invalid.


But this argument is also valid for RFC2544 among many other non-BMWG 
documents (RFC8519 ... , etc.) This draft has the same requirements for 
the network interface technologies it is applicable for as RFC2544 has. 
It is for packet-switched network interfaces only indeed.


> That limitation should be reflected in the title.


Do you agree this is the same limitation RFC2544 fails to reflect in its 
title?


/Vladimir


>
> Tom Petch
>
>> While not spelled out this is also true for RFC2544.
>>
>>
>> /Vladimir
>>