RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
1. Discussions about 10GEA business is not an appropriate topic of
discussion on this reflector.
2. Even so, my understanding is the you were never denied an opportunity to
participate. No individual or company was ever denied an opportunity to
participate in 10GEA activities. That was your and your company's choice. If
this is incorrect, it must be brought up with the 10GEA, not the IEEE.
3. Even so, the blue book and its presentations, as presented to the
P802.3ae, was nothing more than a compendium of presentations of members of
the P802.ea, many of which were refinements to presentations that existed
prior to the existence of the 10GEA.
4. From an IEEE perspective, said Blue Book, DID NOT BECOME DRAFT 1.0. The
presentations in the Blue Book were voted in (or out) one at a time by the
membership of 802.3ae.
5. The IEEE (in this case P802.3ae) is not "they." It is us.
6. As has always been the case, decisions in the IEEE are made on the basis
of informed and respectful dialog. Some concepts, opinions, ideas, and
innovation are not adopted. In the case of P802.3ae, there is more that was
set aside than there was that was adopted by the required 75% voting rules.
It may be a very interesting sociological thesis on why some things made it
in and others did not. But, for here and now, we need to focused on the
business of creating a draft. That is the job of P802.3ae. We all know the
process. We MUST stick to it. There IS NO OTHER WAY.
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:00 AM
To: Bruce Tolley; pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx; bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx;
Subject: 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.
At 04:23 PM 1/29/01 -0800, Bruce Tolley wrote:
>At 05:15 PM 1/29/01 -0700, pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>If someone wants a change as a result of this, it should be done in terms
>>one or more specific changes and not a general statement which they expect
>>editor's to develop into a draft change.
>>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
>> >the standard. It is a matter of interpretation to each individual in
>> >room as to what is inside and outside the scope of the standard based
>> >the objectives. Everyone in the room could have a differing view of
>> >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
>> > >OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c"
>> > >
>> > >That's all the objective says. By that objective, we could create a
>> > >PHY" that that is just the 10GBASE-R PHY pushing data onto the fiber
>> > >9.58464 Gb/s, without any SONET overhead. The objective was meant to
>> > >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
>> > >don't have any experience in attempting to implement what you are
>> > >proposing. The objectives of P802ae include a WAN PHY. What
>> > >WAN PHY has been explained to the group by those of us that have
>> > >a WAN optical environment. You keep miss representing the
>> > >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
>> > >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
>> > >are.
>> > >
>> > >Thank you,
>> > >Roy Bynum