RE: what's next ?
I would assume that 802.3ae would do the same as 802.3z, and NOT specify conectors. The models that we work from are sufficient to determine the optical tables, since most of that work was done in 802.3z, and I would not anticipate new optical test procedures, though there might be some associated with launch condition. That work is nearing completion. As far as the jitter goes, that one may require some additional work, but I think it any MMF solution (I assume that this is a must have for 802.3ae... as dictated by the PAR) would require some amount of work.
From: Jonathan Thatcher
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:13 PM
To: 'DOVE,DANIEL J HP-Roseville,ex1; stds-802-3-hssg
Subject: RE: what's next ?
If we are successful in adding the necessary PMD(s) to the baseline proposal
during the September Interim Meeting, I see no reason why this detour should
cause any modification in the overall schedule.
Structurally, adding a Serial PMD will end up as a "column addition" to the
Serial PMD clause (yes, I know, like with clause 38, we might actually have
new tables). This level of change should be pretty transparent. Especially
since we already know the specifications for the tables. Right?
For non-serial, PMD proposals, it would certainly help if any September
presentation came equipped with a "Draft 1.0 equivalent."
I am more concerned with a few details that we haven't gotten to yet:
1. What is the connector on the media going to be? SC/LC/MT/Other?
2. What new optical test methods are required?
3. Can we lock down the jitter specifications and measurement (XAUI, SUPI,
>From: DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:dan_dove@xxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 3:21 PM
>To: 'Jonathan Thatcher'; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: what's next ?
>I would appreciate it if you would clarify something for me.
>Since only the 1550 and 1300nm serial PMDs made it forward
>at this last meeting, does that imply that a multimode or
>WDM PMD will by necessity be forced to assume a later schedule?
>Can we expect to have a low-cost/short-haul PMD solution on
>the original time frame?
>If so, I may have mis-interpreted the situation in La Jolla and
>will be glad that my comments did not result in a negative vote
>for moving the two PMDs forward.
>HP ProCurve Networks