Re: XAUI and 64b/66b
Once again, XAUI/XGXS is optional, please don't be compelled to endorse it.
At this point XAUI/XGXS meets and exceeds Critter #1 Broad Market Potential in a
manner unparalleled by any other 10 GbE proposal with the exception of the
Serial LAN PHY (which supports XAUI/XGXS).
There are NO other complete proposals on the table which address the many chip
and backplane interconnect requirements. Please consider this statement as a
challenge, because if there is something out there that is better than the
current XAUI/XGXS proposal, I'm interested in building chips to it. Time is also
running out for new proposals so be quick about getting your competing proposal
aired before July '00. BTW, that'll be close to the timeframe that XGMII-to-XAUI
chips should be sampling from multiple vendors.
"We and they" are planning to make LAN PHYs as well as provide multiple
solutions for the MAN/WAN. All of those solutions will provide optional support
As an individual IEEE member, I find your recent threads related to 8B/10B to be
somewhat counter-productive to the 10 Gigabit Ethernet standardization effort. I
suggest you "move on" to more productive threads.
Roy Bynum wrote:
> 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.
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
> ----- 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
> > Pat,
> > 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,
> > Rich
> > --
> > 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
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