RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
Because, Shimon, you know as well as any that the symbol error counters do not exist two layers above the PHY.
Also, just as with clause 24 and 36, 10 Gig needs to have the unidirectional aspects clarified during operation with OAM.
Besides, if there is anyone that understands the concept of "benefit to humanity," we have ample evidence that you do. ;-)
As 10 Gig passes the baton to 10GBASE-T, I beseech you guys to "do the right thing."
From: Shimon Muller [mailto:Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:47 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Jonathan Thatcher
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
> OAM is implemented as a sublayer above the MAC, using frames. So,
> exactly what would be the trouble? Passing frames?
10GBASE-T is a PHY project. So why are we arguing about support or
non-support of functionality that is two layers above it?
I don't believe there is any need for an objective with regard to
OAM in 10GBASE-T. It's a non-issue.