Talk:IEEE 802.3

message: Is DIX Ethernet v2.0 really thinnet, as the table here claims?  v1.0 is thicknet. Guy Harris 06:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. References in Ethernet#History make that clear. I have corrected the article. --Kvng (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIX Ethernet is thin? 

message: This article says, "...DIX Ethernet, followed by Ethernet II," implying these are two different things. But Ethernet II framing says, "Ethernet II framing (also known as DIX Ethernet...," implying they are the same. I suggest this confusion be cleared up (in the article, not here on the talk page). Rees11 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DIX and Ethernet II are the same thing. I've added a reference to the Ethernet II article. I've removed the erroneous content from this article because it is covered correctly and in more detail in Ethernet#Ethernet frame types and the EtherType field. --Kvng (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: DIX and Ethernet II are, but Ethernet II and IEEE 802.3 are not.  IEEE 802.3 framing differs a) the type of packet field is replaced by length (as is already noted) and b) the Ethernet II preamble is broken up into a shorter preamble and a start of frame delimiter.  Finally I know for a fact that this machine accepts Ethernet II and 802.3 frames but only ever sends 802.3.  It is not true to say that Ethernet II "is used on all forms of Ethernet by protocols in the Internet protocol suite." Crispmuncher (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all discussed in Ethernet frame. I've removed the shards of meterial that were here. Please read Ethernet frame and make any corrections or comments there. Thanks. --Kvng (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIX vs II 

message: 802.3 is probably better thought of as the name of the working group that produces Ethernet physical layer standards. This article should be changed to be more like 802.1. --Kvng (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working group 

message: Do we really need these?  Especially when they have been done using a simplistic divide-by-8 method rather than considering how data is encoding for transmission.  For example, 10 and 100Mbit ethernet both use 8b10b coding: every byte is ten bits long on the wire meaning the theoretical maximums are 1.0 and 10.0 megabytes per second before we even consider framing overhead and so on.  More generally, techniques such as bit stuffing make calculations impossible since the conversion factor depends on the data being sent.  The IEEE do not quote these figures, they are highly ambiguous (coding and framing are internal to the standards and therefore externally visible bandwidth will always be lower), and they are of little practical use.  I think they should simply be dropped. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. These are not needed. --Kvng (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of bandwidths to megabytes/second 

message: I'm having trouble seeing a clear improvement in these extensive anon edits. I have reverted. Let's discuss the purpose of these before restoring. ~Kvng (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the change of "IEEE 802.3 standard" to "802.3-1983" specifically: this is plain wrong.  There is no 802.3-1983.  It should be 802.3-1985.  This has been resolved by the #Date of First Version topic below. Rob Donnelly (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BRD]]