. >> > >> >As an MSC representative, I would have provided >> >such a follow-up on the addresses used within >> >MSC sponsored projects (754, 1394, etc.), as >> >a duty to my position. >> > >> >I prefer to see the evidence before jumping into >> >denial or conclusions, since (through out my career) >> >I have seen suboptimal decisions made when this >> >ordering is reversed. >> > >> > >> >If you feel strongly about this, >> >Yes, I feel strongly about conservation of OUI space. >> >I naively thoutht that to be the premise of our charter. >> >Times change, I suppose... >> > >> >Cheers, >> >DVJ >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: Geoff Thompson [ mailto:gthompso@nortel.com ] >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:07 PM >> > >> To: Floyd Backes >> > >> Cc: dvj@alum.mit.edu; Geoff Thompson; a.n.weaver@IEEE.ORG; >> > >> stds-rac@IEEE.ORG >> > >> Subject: RE: Request for multiple OUI assignments >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> At 11:48 AM 8/8/2007 , Floyd Backes wrote: >> > >> >If you feel strongly about this, you could review the >> latest version of >> > >> >802.1 MAC Bridging, figure out how it can be made to work >> using the same >> > >> >MAC address on every port, get a PAR to update the >> standard, and then >> > >> >slug it out with Mick over the ensuing 2 years to produce a revised >> > >> >standard.