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

Re: Another clause 49 issue

Pat, Ben,

Per my note on the subject of Link Status encodings dated 11/15/00:, I'd like to
preserve the all of the optional code features outlined in
walker_1_0700.pdf slide 19 as well as extensions to support 10GE Pulse
Ordered-Sets and the preservation of codes to support 10GFC Signal sand
Sequence Ordered-Sets. 

The best way to illustrate these extensions is in the form of of a table
summarizing the Ordered-Set Codes similar to the one at the top of slide
19 of walker_1_0700.pdf, and a second table extending table 49-1. These
two tables are attached to this note. I'd like to include the
information from these tables into D2.0 based on the motion to include
Link Status functions to support Local Fault and Remote Fault as well as
the NCITS T11 request to reserve unused codes for 10GFC usage. 

Best Regards,

"THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> Ben,
> I agree with you and had noticed that myself. I felt it was
> clearly enough a mistake in the walker slide that I had editorial
> license to fix it.
> To explain this more fully to others on the reflector:
> Whenever there is an ODDD, the three Ds take 24 bits and leave
> 4 bits for indicating whether the O is the XGMII 0x5c or 0x9c.
> If the pattern is ODDDSDDD, there are an additional 4 bits not
> used by the Ds. In walker_1_0700, those bits are labeled y,
> but they aren't really associated with an ODDD pattern so
> the "send as 0, ignore on receipt" rule should apply.
> This is what I plan to do as editor on this unless there is
> a significant problem with doing so.
> Regards,
> Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:49 AM
> To: 802.3ae
> Subject: Another clause 49 issue
> Pat,
> This has to do with a motion passed during the breakout
> session. We agreed to check that the x & y ordered set
> IDs have the value "0000" for all the patterns on page
> 19 of:
> We agreed to not check the undefined bits for the ZS and
> T0 thru T6 patterns on page 5. This comment is in regards
> to the y ordered set ID for the OS pattern on page 19. I
> content that this Y ordered set ID is actually mis-labeled
> and is, in fact, the result of merely some extra spaces
> due to the existence of the S code rather than an
> ordered set ID. These bits match up directly with the
> extra bits in the ZS pattern on page 5. I'd like to
> recommend that we not be required to verify these bits
> for the OS pattern.
> I doubt you can do anything about this for D2.0 due to the
> wording of the motion that was approved in the breakout,
> affirmed later in the task force then re-affirmed Thursday
> in the working group. However, I just wanted to make others
> aware of this and will likely make a comment about this in
> the task force ballot in December.
> Thanks,
> Ben
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Benjamin Brown
> 2 Commerce Park West
> Suite 104
> Bedford NH 03110
> 603-641-9837 - Work
> 603-491-0296 - Cell
> 603-647-2291 - Fax
> 603-798-4115 - Home Office
> bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------
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