Re: [10GBT] PHY proposals reminder
A number of the items being requested are believed by the editor to be
required for him and his team to generate a first draft specification.
You welcome to add information that you believe is pertinent, and you
can also leave out information you believe is irrelevant or not
applicable to the specification. If you believe that certain
information is not required to be disclosed at this time, then that is a
choice you can make.
The spreadsheet is intended to help the Task Force reach a decision of
what will be documented in the .3an specification, and to assist the
editorial team in the creation of D1.0 and to track which decisions the
Task Force needs to close before the Task Force can proceed to Working
Group ballot.
Thank you,
Brad
Brad Booth
Chair, P802.3an Task Force
bbooth@ieee.org
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of George Zimmerman
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:21 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GBT@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [10GBT] PHY proposals reminder
Sanjay - I assume this request comes from Sanjay of Teranetics, not as
editor. (I also assume it was an oversight you used your editor
signature on the email).
I agree that some of these items are useful for comparison, but
individuals will make their comparisons based on parameters that matter
to themselves, and will look for the information they feel they need. I
further agree that most of the small subset marked REQUIRED will
eventually need to be specified in the standard. I beg to differ
whether they all need to be dragged out at the current time.
In the larger list, there are real issues. Technically speaking, the
biggest problem I see is that a number of the requests are based on
putting together models which would be highly architecture dependent,
and, as such generate inaccurate conclusions.
ADC bits, DAC bits, PAR, speed of converters beyond baud rate, etc. are
all functions of the architecture. We have already seen presentations
(e.g., Richard Spenser) on how such proprietary items as receive
filtering choices can change the effect of required ADC bits. Those of
us familiar with PAR reduction discussions in the DSL world (I know at
least a few of you are!) have also lived through how specific choices in
the analog filtering topology will effect PAR, and render what seem to
be differences in PAR between schemes as moot points.
In an ideal world, individuals might work just as hard on an
architecture for a competitive design as their own, but I somehow doubt
that we will get any degree of accuracy on estimating a competitive
design from a competing source. As such, these architectural subtleties
blur the value of providing this long list of detailed information, and,
instead, turn it into a morass, most likely slowing progress.
-george
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Sanjay Kasturia
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:07 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GBT@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [10GBT] PHY proposals reminder
This is a reminder.
If you are planning on making a PHY proposal for 10GBASE-T at the
upcoming meeting in May at Long Beach, please provide as much
information as you can and fill in as much as you can of the "proposal
details" spreadsheet.
The spread sheet was sent out earlier and is available on the
public/material website at:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/an/public/material/proposaldetails.xls
If your proposal is such that items other than those specifically listed
in the spread sheet are pertinent, please feel free to make additional
entries.
The rationale for requesting the information is listed on the
spreadsheet.
If you have questions on channel models, please make sure you copy Chris
DiMinico.
Sanjay Kasturia
Editor-in-chief, 802.3an
sanjay@teranetics.com
cell (650) 704-7686
office (408) 653-2235