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

RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY


If someone wants a change as a result of this, it should be done in terms of
one or more specific changes and not a general statement which they expect
editor's to develop into a draft change. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:11 PM
To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY

Brad and Roy:

I asked this question before and no one responded.  Is someone going to 
turn this email thread into a comment on the next draft?


At 12:13 PM 1/28/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:

>Yes, by that reasoning, you could state that RF/LF is outside the scope of
>the standard.  It is a matter of interpretation to each individual in the
>room as to what is inside and outside the scope of the standard based upon
>the objectives.  Everyone in the room could have a differing view of what
>the WAN PHY is and what the required management is.  I believe that our
>standard can only be stronger if we, as participants, are willing to
>question everything about it.  If we can't justify it being in the
>then it probably doesn't belong.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 4:03 PM
>To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
>Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
>Just because the objective was vague doe not mean it was without
>meaning.  By your reasoning, I could just as easily state that RL/LF
>functionality is out of scope, as it was not included in the
>objectives.  Just as the objective for a LAN PHY carried with it the
>inferred lack of need for management overhead, the objective for the WAN
>PHY carried with it the inferred need for management overhead.  Please
>refer back to the all of the traffic on the reflector and to the
>presentations concerning the management overhead requirements for a WAN
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>At 09:53 PM 1/26/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >To quote the objectives:
> >"Define two families of PHYs
> >- A LAN PHY, operating at a data rate of 10.000 Gb/s
> >- A WAN PHY, operating at a data rate compatible with the payload rate of
> >OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c"
> >
> >That's all the objective says.  By that objective, we could create a "WAN
> >PHY" that that is just the 10GBASE-R PHY pushing data onto the fiber at
> >9.58464 Gb/s, without any SONET overhead.  The objective was meant to be
> >vague so that the task force had some flexibility.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Brad
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 5:59 AM
> >To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> >Subject: Re: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> >
> >
> >
> >Rich,
> >
> >You have a very good a presenting that would seem reasonable to those who
> >don't have any experience in attempting to implement what you are
> >proposing.  The objectives of P802ae include a WAN PHY.  What constitutes
> >WAN PHY has been explained to the group by those of us that have worked
> >a WAN optical environment.  You keep miss representing the requirements
> >a WAN PHY by presenting a LAN implementation as a WAN.  It works very
> >at confusing those that are attempting to gain an understanding of what
> >issues are.
> >
> >Those of us that have worked in the WAN optical environment are not
> >confused by your comments.  Those of us that have worked in the WAN
> >environment would like to have the opportunity to educate those that
> >actually like to gain a understanding of what the real world requirements
> >are.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum