Re: XAUI and 64b/66b
I don't know how many noticed. Most, if not all of those whose names went
on that list have a vested interest in maintaining 8B10B as the MAC chip
interface. Perhaps you and they should be allowed, as per the original
compromise to make their own LAN only PHY and move on.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: XAUI and 64b/66b
> Good point. I ran out of room on the the front page to list the many folks
> the same company in support of this proposal :-)
> I'll allow the chair to rule on your question since that's his job.
> In this case, I had obtained advance permission from each individual
> on the front page of the XAUI/XGXS proposal to also list the company name.
> Best Regards,
> Patrick Gilliland wrote:
> > Rich,
> > 1.) I believe it is proper to mention the support
> > of 27 individuals for the 8B/10b XAUI/XGXS proosal.
> > Typically, at IEEE we do not have companies voting
> > their support as a block, and it has been the intent
> > of the IEEE not to engage companies formally as
> > voting members.
> > I have seen quite a number of these corporate references
> > in the last few days, and I thought the chair might have
> > noticed by now and stepped in.
> > 2.) It raises an interesting theoretical question about
> > individuals who are incorporated as one-man consulting
> > and design services. Should they be barred from voting
> > because their vote might also be interpreted as representing
> > the interest of their company?
> > Before anyone flames me for 2.), please consider the source
> > and the purely diversionary motives.
> > Best Regards,
> > Patrick Gilliland
> 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