Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Why not have both


Thanks for condensing it. It looks much better without requiring bridging.

Henry Ngai

----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Frazier <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Why not have both

> As others have pointed out, the model I presented is just that, a
> model.  It is not intended to constrain implementations, but it is
> intended to define the scope of work for the 10 Gigabit Ethernet
> standards project.
> Implementers can, and probably will, build a variety of devices.
> That's the wonderful thing about implementers. They are creative, and
> they respond to the needs of their customers. As standards weenies, our
> job is to write a document that describes the essential requirements
> for interoperability, and let creativity, inovation, and the demands of
> the market define the product specs.
> If we can agree that we will
>      Have two PHYs, one for the LAN, and
>      one for the WAN
> and we can agree that
>      Within the context of the 802 standards
>      architecture, the two PHYs operate below
>      identical individual 802.3 MACs
> and we can agree that
>      The PHYs may require the definition
>      of new management attributes
> Then we will have made a huge amount of progress, and we will be able to
> draft and gain approval of a PAR with the supporting 5 Criteria.  The
> standard that we eventually produce will fit nicely into the family of
> 802 standards, and implementers will go out, work their magic, and deliver
> interoperable products that customers will just love.
> Howard Frazier
> Cisco Systems, Inc.