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

RE: Why not have both

Very clear, simple, and precise definition.

Excellent proposal.

Ed Chang
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 1:14 PM
To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
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.