Re: Why not have both
I'm thrilled to see you pull both factions together in the "11th hour."
All along I've been concerned that this debate might really delay the
standardization process. I would like to know, perhaps from a historical
point of view, why two PHYs work in this case, but in the long haul copper
case (1000BASE-T) the group separated from the 802.3z task force. Thanks,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
At 02:38 PM 9/10/99 -0700, Howard Frazier wrote:
>The PAR is a brief document that contains little in the way of
>technical detail. Mostly it's a bunch of boxes to check off. I doubt
>that we need to say anything about a pacing mechanism in the PAR. Same
>goes for the 5 Criteria. They don't dive down into technical details.
>The subject of pacing can be addressed in the objectives, and
>both you and I have proposed words for such an objective.
> 4) Agree that a pacing mechanism of some sort can be employed
> if necessary to throttle the MAC's transmit data rate down to a
> rate which is compatible with the payload rate of a WAN PHY.
> 4) Agree that a pacing mechanism be employed to throttle the MAC's
> transmit data rate down to a rate which is compatible with the
> payload of OC-192c/SDH-64.
>Not a whole lot of difference, right? My wording is less specific,
>because I think that the objectives should give us some wiggle room.
>However, I am confident that we can get consensus on some combination
>of words that will satisfy the Study Group. Needs a little tuning,
>Folks, I think we are getting somewhere. Is anyone truly grossed out
>by the idea of having two PHYs? Are we really down to word-smithing
>at this point?
>Cisco Systems, Inc.