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

Re: Clause 51 (XSBI) questions

Hello Erik,

This was the path taken by OIF. My preference was/is  to do something
similar to XAUI where there are specs for output and input that are 
applicable either end of the connection, PMA or PCS. However, the XSBI is 
coming from slightly
different angles 

    a) inclusion of clock signals  
    b) legacy from leveraging from OIF ... where they have done 
        inversions on the clocks
    c) efforts to accomodate technology PCS (CMOS), 
        PMA (higher speed processes)

So ... given the more "complicating" issues, I think it may be in the best 
interest to spec both ends. These would be additions to the specs currently
in clause 51. I will certainly highlight this at the editor's mtg in 

Justin Chang
Quake Technologies, Inc.
50 Airport Parkway, San Jose, CA. 95110
Tel: 408-437-7723       email: justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fax: 408-437-4923       internet:

In a message dated 10/13/00 8:55:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
erikt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Hi Justin,
>  Would it not make more sense to specify the timing requirement,
>  both at the PMA and the PCS?  I can envisage a situation where
>  a vendor selling PCS+PMA modules buys PCS devices from one
>  vendor and PMA devices from another vendor.  The PCS vendor
>  and the PMA vendor would have to have prior knowledge of the
>  board design, which may or may not be possible.  Specifying
>  timing requirement for both devices allows easier inter-working
>  in my opinion.
>  Regards,
>  Erik Trounce