From pgilliland@methode.com Thu Dec 2 01:23:10 1999 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA00855; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:23:08 GMT Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06652; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:51:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991201144724.008e62a0@mail0.methode.com> X-Sender: pgilliland@mail0.methode.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:47:24 -0600 To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org From: Patrick Gilliland Subject: Is HARI "THE" PMD interface ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Precedence: bulk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org X-Lines: 50 Status: O Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2013 Roy, I believe you have finally crystallized what a number of people are thinking about this issue. I believe Ed Chang also made some comments along this line. The confusion is real about whether HARI is indeed a PHY specification or not. I happen to agree the backplane designers are free to use whatever works best, but I doubt we should propose it as a PHY interface standard until the PHY itself is defined. Pat Gilliland patgil@methode.com ---------------------------------------------------- Rich, I saw a lot of confusion in the presentations of what Hari is intended for. One presentation used Hari as a backplane interconnect. There is confusion on the reflector. There IS a lot of "support" for Hari from vendors that want to stay on the good side of a particular vendor. Otherwise, I suspect that there is a lot of concern about the way that Hari has been brought to the HSSG. When Hari was first introduced at York, I thought that it was a proposal for a an XGMII. While I did not actively support it, as a XGMII it did not preclude the existence of other PHYs. It could be modified to incorporate a pacing mechanism between a PHY and the MAC. The PHY would still implement the PCS/PMA/PMD for what ever standard the Task Force decided on, even the one from Korea. As far as I am concerned, any chip maker/system designer that wants to use Hari can. I just don't want to see it standardized as the PCS to PMD interconnect, even as an optional. The HSSG is not the correct forum to be doing implementation practices or standards. That was one of the things that was impressed on me at the June meeting. There is enough disparity between the PHYs to cause a major rift if a PHY implementation standard is decided on before the PHYs are even defined. Unless a particular vendor is doing their best to back door a PHY standard before the Task Force is even in place, there is no need to decide on implementation practices before the PHYs are fully defined. Thank you, Roy Bynum