Requested revision
| Standard: | IEEE Std 802.1Q-2018 | Clause: | Appendix A |
| Clause title: | PICS proforma -- Bridge implemeentations | ||
Rationale for revision
PICS is inconsistent, and therefore hard for a vendor to fill out. Following are four sets of identical PICs conditions and in each set the response boxes are different when the set of response choices should be the same. The PICs is a language and has a specific syntax and these examples show the inconsistency. Item Status Support CFM-T TPMR:M Yes [ ] MSP TPMR:M Yes [ ] N/A [ ] MMRP EFS:M Yes [ ] No [ ] RLY-20 FF:M Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] BPDU ¬TPMR:M TPMR:X Yes [ ] No [ ] VLAN ¬TPMR:M TPMR:X Yes [ ] MAC-12 MAC-802.3:O Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] ECMP SPBM:O Yes [ ] No [ ] RSTP-20 RSTP:X No [ ] RLY-17 CFM:X No [ ] N/A [ ] BFS-22 PBBTE: X Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ]
Proposed text
I would suggest that the above examples should be: Item Status Support CFM-T TPMR:M Yes [ ] N/A [ ] MSP TPMR:M Yes [ ] N/A [ ] MMRP EFS:M Yes [ ] N/A [ ] RLY-20 FF:M Yes [ ] N/A [ ] BPDU ¬TPMR:M TPMR:X Yes [ ] No [ ] VLAN ¬TPMR:M TPMR:X Yes [ ] No [ ] MAC-12 MAC-802.3:O Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] ECMP SPBM:O Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A [ ] RSTP-20 RSTP:X No [ ] N/A [ ] RLY-17 CFM:X No [ ] N/A [ ] BFS-22 PBBTE: X Yes [ ] N/A [ ]
Impact on existing networks
None
Originator
| Name: | Norman Finn | Email: | nfinn@nfinnconsulting.com |
| Affiliation: | Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd | ||
| Submitted: | 2019-07-17 | ||