RE: TLM extensions - status

Hello Tor,

some comments below.

From: Jeremiassen, Tor [mailto:tor@ti.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 6:03 AM
To: john.aynsley@doulos.com
Cc: Philipp A. Hartmann; Stuart Swan; Bart Vanthournout; Jerome CORNET; stanleyk@cadence.com; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: TLM extensions - status

>>While I think the idea of a protocol version field in the payload (along the lines of David Black's previous comment) is appealing at some level - >>but I feel we are rushing in pushing one of the more recently suggested solutions (last 12 hours) into the standard without full and proper >>consideration and a broader input from stakeholders.

Well, time is passing, and we do are reviewing the proposals. This is a constructive approach...

>>I feel this should be left to the TLM working group for a future release of TLM 2.1 or TLM 3.0 that then would be included in a subsequent IEEE >>standard update.

We *are* at TLM 2.1 (although it will be probably called differently ;-)). We have a unique opportunity to make
changes that are minor but fundamental to the core TLM.
For instance, I doubt that adding a version attribute will ever be possible in the context of the OSCI,
as all people will cry fool to binary compatibility. Here, we can benefit from the changes required
by natural evolution of the norm to actually make things evolve. Let's take it...

Jerome

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.