Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
If you ask a question that only considers benefits and not costs, the answer will be
skewed and (IMHO) fairly meaningless.
Is one PHY better than two? Sure.
Is one PHY better than two if the cost for the part is tripled. Absolutely not!
How about if having both PHY capabilities increases the power budget by a factor of
50% over each individually?
If a part can meet the standards for operating in the mode of operation that
the vendor chooses to support, it should be acceptable. It should not be unacceptable
just because it might be "better" if it could also do other things.
If someone wants to make a LAN only PHY, why not let them?
If someone wants to make a WAN only PHY, why not let them?
If someone wants to make a UNI PHY, why not let them?
Standards groups (again IMHO) should define standards, not implementations. I.e.
define what is on the wire, not how it gets there.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
> Well said! This was also my interpretation of the survey results. If there were
> only one question on the survey, UniPHY vs. separate LAN and WAN PHY, I believe
> that the survey results would be the same (i.e. strongly in favor of a UniPHY).
> Best Regards,
> Bruce Tolley wrote:
> > At 08:33 AM 3/14/00 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
> > > I think that the original compromise and
> > >the objectives as stated are correct, there needs to be seperate LAN and WAN
> > >PHYs.
> > Roy:
> > I think in the first part of your statement you hit the nail on the head. Goal #9 (Define two families of PHYs) was a
compromise that came out of several meetings that was aided by the bridge diagram originally proposed by Howard Frazier.
> > Many folks have since expressed displeasure with the idea of a bridge but the picture gave the members of the study group a way
to understand and bound the problem.
> > The goal of two PHYs agreed upon in York was as much political statement as it was a technical statement. There was a strong
feeling up to the meeting in York of the need to limit the problem, define the goals, and get on with the work.
> > It was always clearly stated that the goals were not written in stone and we might come back to revise them.
> > Given the basis of the findings from survey conducted by Jonathan, I conclude that there is strong support among the members of
the task force to seriously investigate the concept of the UniPHY.
> > Bruce
> Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com