Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Optical Connectors


The way I read your suggestion, what would happen is this:

1. Reference clause 38.11.3 (don't need to cut and paste into a new clause).
2. Add your words: ""When high density is an important consideration then
Small Form Factor connector designs that meet the dimensions and interface
specifications of IEC 61754-18, IEC 61754-19 and IEC 61754-20 outlined in an
Informative Annex XX are recommended."

What this would mean: 802.3ae adopted four optical connectors.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: [mailto:tszostak1@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 2:23 PM
>To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG
>Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>Please see below.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jonathan Thatcher <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 12:45 PM
>Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
>> Given some of the notes on this thread, I am not confident 
>that everyone
>> the same idea of what it might mean for P802.3ae to specify 
>an optical
>> connector.
>> I think that we can simply look at clause 38.11.3 to see how 
>we would do
>> this. In particular, note that the connector is specified by 
>reference to
>> international standard (IEC 61754-4) where the connector is 
>specified in
>> detail.
>Rather simple using cut and paste of 38.11.3 (duplex SC only) 
>or by adding
>to the above following my recommendations supported by Paul, 
>Rich, Schelto,
>Joel and few other: "When high density is an important 
>consideration then
>Small Form Factor connector designs that meet the dimensions 
>and interface
>specifications of IEC 61754-18, IEC 61754-19 and IEC 61754-20 
>outlined in an
>Informative Annex XX are recommended." This would also be in 
>line with ISO
>> I believe it is our duty to select at least one connector 
>for P802.3ae. I
>> personally have reservations about the committee selecting 
>more than two
>> (e.g. SC and one SFF). If referencing FC implies indirect 
>adoption of more
>> than two, this is a bad idea. We need to be clear what is being
>> By way of example, in clause 38.11.1 we reference IEC 793-2 fiber
>> specifications. We do not reference all fibers specified in 
>IEC 793-2.
>I believe that you may have personal preferences regarding 
>particular style
>and by way of the same example please take a note that IEC 
>793-2 does cover
>50/125, 62.6/125 MMFs in 850 and 1310 nm windows with multiplication of
>bandwidth cells in four different categories (A1 - A4). The 
>fifth, category
>B, covers SMF.
>As you can see the matrix is rather large.
>> jonathan