Talk:Start frame delimiter
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dsimic in topic Frames and packets
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Ethernet frame Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Ethernet frame |
 | The contents of the Start frame delimiter page were merged into Ethernet frame#SFD on April 6, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Frames and packets
editHello there! Regarding your edit on the Start frame delimiter article, I'd say it is important to clearly and completely describe the SFD's position and relation to Ethernet packets and frames. If someone is interested in the SFD, falling at the same time into 0.05% of the human population interested in such things, he/she is probably also interested in its exact position. Of course, I'm more than open to discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Ethernet frame is the correct place to cover packet vs. frame. Most technical people either don't appreciate the difference between the two or don't agree on the terminology. Trying to clear this up here is unnecessary and distracts from the primary topic here. If you feel strongly that it also needs to be covered here, I would encourage that we first consider a merge of this article into Ethernet frame to avoid redundancy. ~KvnG 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the main distinction between Ethernet frames and packets belongs to the Ethernet frame article; regarding the disagreements on Ethernet frames vs. packets, that's probably because few people went ahead and studied the official Ethernet specifications – which, quite frankly, aren't such amusing texts. :) Also, I do agree that it would be the best to merge the Start frame delimiter article into Ethernet frame, as that would provide a much better context, and the whole thing would be generally more understandable that way. If you agree, I'll place the merge tags, so other editors can also comment on the merger proposal. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine with me if you skip the tags and do this merge WP:BOLDly. ~KvnG 13:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it shouldn't be a big deal, however I've placed the merger proposal tags so any other interested editors can also comment. Of course, we don't need to wait for more than a week or two before merging the articles. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, it's been cooking for long enough. Merged, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)