RE: York plans
I would agree with Rich and take it one step further. In Montreal the following distance motions
* At least 100 m over installed MMF passed 73-13-21
* At least 300 m over MMF passed 83-3-12
* At least 2 km over SMF passed 105-0-0
* At least 10 km over SMF passed 93-5-7
* At least 40km over SMF passed 68-4-23
We could further simplify the distances by eliminating the first bullet on installed MMF.
> From: Rich Taborek[SMTP:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Reply To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 12:44 AM
> To: HSSG
> Subject: Re: York plans
> I have interspersed a couple of comments on your plans to give you some feedback
> and get some discussion going.
> To keep it simple, I'll delete sections with which I agree (I agree with most of
> Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
> > Thank you Howard.
> > We will need to have a motion to change our objectives to include this
> > "resolution" to the "speed" objective. It needs to be clear if both PHYs are
> > intended to support our matrix of distances, or if the WAN PHY will support
> > a different set (or subset) of distances.
> As I suggested (quite vehemently) in the July meeting, I believe that we already
> have too many distance objectives. Coming up with a different set for the WAN
> PHY, unless any of the individual objectives are SIGNIFICANTLY different is a
> waste of valuable committee time. For example, the only additional distance
> objective suggested over this reflector for the WAN PHY is 15 km (by Paul
> Bottorff). This would yield 4 SMF distances of 2 km, 10 km, 15 km, and 40 km. Do
> we really need 4 different price points to shoot at? I think not.
> > Additionally, there are a couple of other things the chair would like to get
> > started on:
> > 2. Define a PMD template that can be used by each PHY candidate to document
> > specific recommendations (based on clause 38?)
> We definitely have a blurring of layers and sublayers in the PHY at 10 GbE. In
> fact, we can have as many as three succeeding sub-PHYs, each including their own
> PCS, PMA and PMD definitions comprising a 10 GbE PHY. Take for example a 10 GMII
> interface, transceiver interface and media interface such as that proposed by
> Howard Frazier et. al. in Montreal. I suggest that we separate the PHY into a
> MACI (old MII), MII (transceiver module interface) and MI (media interface).
> This should result in the PHY candidates differing only in their MI clauses.
> > 3. Document dependencies between layers (clauses). For example: coding and
> > PMDs.
> Each interface may be coded or not. Coding is an integral part of each specific
> Best Regards,
> Richard Taborek Sr. Tel: 650 210 8800 x101 or 408 370 9233
> Principal Architect Fax: 650 940 1898 or 408 374 3645
> Transcendata, Inc. Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1029 Corporation Way http://www.transcendata.com
> Palo Alto, CA 94303-4305 Alt email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx