Minutes for 0317: Clarification on precedence in Stream Identity Table

Standard: IEEE 802.1CB Clause: 9.1 Draft with fix: Status: Rejected
Submitter: Marina Gutierrez Date: 2021-04-12 Rationale: Clause 9.1 states that is possible that different entries in this table ...
Show Request Show Preformatted Request
Date Meeting Text Status
2021-06-22 22 Jun 2021 Concall The discussion of this item needs to include the original editor to make sure the original intent is understood. There is a question whether the described configuration is even valid. There is a difference between what is described in and that needs to be understood. If the described configuration is valid, then it is agreed that some sort of priority is needed, but if the configuration is not valid, then perhaps a description of how this error condition is recognized is needed. Technical experts review
2021-07-29 29 Jul 2021 Concall The proposed solution is not providing a normative definition of the precedence when there are multiple matching rows. The note is not normative. The interpretation of "Any number of tsnStreamIdEntry objects can list the same port for the same tsnStreamIdHandle in its tsnStreamIdOutFacInputPortList." doesn't appear to create an issue with precedence. The rational doesn't appear to describe the problem and a discussion with the request submitter is needed. Technical experts review
2021-09-24 20 Sep 2021 Interim At the end of clause 10, just before 10.1, the text read, "A system shall return an error if an attempt is made to configure conflicting requirements upon that system.". This normative text that clearly indicates you can not have multiple matches and that an error shall be returned. The issue is therefor not a bug and could be considered an enhancement request for a future revision of CB. This should be reviewed in the context of Mask and Match - this implies that non-overlapping masks are not prohibited. CBdb could consider describing the behavior if non-overlapping masks were created, however CBdb is in SA recirculation ballot and it is too late. A future revision of CB can address the issue. The request is being rejected on the grounds that it is considered an enhancement request. Rejected