RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
Bruce, Pat, Brad,
Everyone that wanted to could have participated in the WIS logic track when
the question of the operational maintenance bytes were presented. I am
still irritated that I was not allowed to participate as a customer in the
10 GEA and present the rational for need for each of the bytes and make it
part of the original "blue book" presentations that became Draft 1.0. I
have made general presentations concerning the need for what I believe to
be the bytes in question. It is taking a great amount of resources on my
part to keep going over this issue again and again.
I am confused about what P802.3ae really wants to happen in the market
place. They have promoted the development of technology that will support
competition from high bandwidth Fibre Channel and thus limit the market
share for the LAN PHY. Now they seem to want to also cripple the
functionality of, and thus limit the market share of the WAN PHY. What is
happening here? Does anyone think that limiting the market for the WAN PHY
will increase the market for the LAN PHY? If so, they are very wrong. All
that will be accomplished is to limit the ability of the 802.3 to maintain
control of the Ethernet standard. Other organizations are in the process
of developing competing PHYs because 802.3 has not stepped up to what the
market needs. Even future development in such groups as EFM is now in
jeopardy. I know this because I am involved with those other groups as
well. I would rather see 802.3 maintain control of the standard, but that
is up to 802.3.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 04:23 PM 1/29/01 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
>Pat:
>
>Yes precisely.
>
>Bruce
>
>At 05:15 PM 1/29/01 -0700, pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>Bruce,
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>-----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?
>>
>>
>>Bruce
>>
>>At 12:13 PM 1/28/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>>
>> >Roy,
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Brad
>> >
>> >-----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
>> >
>> >
>> >Brad,
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >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
>>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
>> > >are.
>> > >
>> > >Thank you,
>> > >Roy Bynum