RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
Brad made a comment on the last draft, which was rejected.
At 02:10 PM 1/29/01 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
>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 standard,
>>then it probably doesn't belong.
>>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 PHY.
>>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.
>> >-----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
>> >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 a
>> >WAN PHY has been explained to the group by those of us that have worked in
>> >a WAN optical environment. You keep miss representing the requirements of
>> >a WAN PHY by presenting a LAN implementation as a WAN. It works very well
>> >at confusing those that are attempting to gain an understanding of what the
>> >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 optical
>> >environment would like to have the opportunity to educate those that would
>> >actually like to gain a understanding of what the real world requirements
>> >Thank you,
>> >Roy Bynum