RE: Going the distance
- To: "'Cornejo, Edward (Edward)'" <ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx>, HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Going the distance
- From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:21:42 -0700
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you review the minutes from Coeur d'Alene, the objective to "support
media selected from ISO/IEC 11801" failed.
I am still trying to understand why. I think some felt it would preclude
using media not included in 11801 (yet in 802.3z, the same objective didn't
prevent us from defining operation on other fibers), others thought it
should be 11801-A (these people wouldn't agree with your assertion that new
media defined in -A are included in the objective), etc. I will have to
read up on my Robert's Rules to determine if the same motion would be in
order, or if the only way to bring it back is to reconsider the motion.
Obviously a similar but in some aspect substantivly different motion would
be in order. I feel strongly we should have an objective similar to this.
From: Cornejo, Edward (Edward) [mailto:ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: Going the distance
In Jonathan's notes, he mentions support media from ISO/IEC 11801. Wouldn't
this cover both the installed base and any new media accepted by ISO/IEC
11801. If so, I would see no reason to include the wording "installed base"
in our distance objective. Brian would you agree with this?
> From: Jonathan Thatcher[SMTP:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:08 PM
> To: HSSG
> Subject: RE: Going the distance
> Just to make sure that everyone is keeping everything in perspective. The
> tabled motion on distance that we will pick up in Montreal currently
> Adopt as objectives for the Higher Speed Study Group:
> Provide a family of Physical Layer specifications which support a link
> distance of:
> a. At least 100 m on multimode fiber
> b. At least 3 km on single mode fiber
> Move: Bob Grow
> Second: Tom Dineen
> Rich Taborek, with Howard Frazier seconding, is proposing the following as
> an amendment/replacement:
> That the distance objective support the premises cabling plant distances
> specified in ISO/IEC 11801
> The distances supported in ISO/IEC 11801 are:
> 100 m for horizontal cabling
> 550 m for vertical cabling
> 2-3 km for campus cabling
> Compare these to the 802.3z (Nov 96) objectives:
> 11. Provide a family of Physical Layer specifications which support a link
> distance of:
> a. At least 25 m on copper (100 m preferred)
> b. At least 500 on multimode fiber
> c. At least 3 km on single mode fiber
> 13. Support media selected from ISO/ IEC 11801
> For those of you that weren't there for 802.3z, the gigabit standard met
> supports this last set of objectives! It wasn't particularly easy at times
> (in fact, for those of us who lived through it, we quip and wonder why we
> would ever want to do this again). In fact, had it not been for these
> objectives, we might have -- no, we probably would have -- given up and
> resolved on a much shorter set of distances. Howard Frazier, armed with
> set of objectives, somehow managed to keep us going until we got it done.
> do not think I am over stating this!
> Everyone, please think long and hard about the implications of these
> objectives on the future work of the HSSG. There are any number of
> significant differences in these three sets. I will note only one: item
> of the original motion (same as the 802.3z objective 11c) meets all the
> requirements of the amendment to it.
> Having worked in a number of standards activities, I have come to
> the value of setting the objectives early in the process. These become a
> guide, a challenge, and a metric by which much of the work is gauged. If
> there is any ambiguity as to the intent of the objectives, we will be
> nothing but postponing the difficult decisions. If ambiguity is the only
> we can achieve consensus, I am not optimistic we will succeed. This is a
> difficult thing to do. It is worth doing right. Whatever the process we
> let's make sure the end result is something that everyone can get behind.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > .... deleted ....