RE: Clause 49 /A/ /K/ /R/ on XGMII question
I'm not sure I understant what you are asking. The XGXS and X PCS have to
distinguish between an all /A/s lane or a partial /A/s lane for purposes of
monitoring alignment of the link. They don't _have_ to do this for decoding.
However, as Rich wrote the clause, the clause does specify that behavior for
decoding and the sub-task force chose to affirm that at the interim in
January by rejecting a comment I had made suggesting doing it the other way.
The important thing is this is not an important decision. As long as we are
consistant across the layers it works either way and has minimal impact on
I'm getting kind of tired of the subject and feel its being beaten to death.
Please address any further questions about it to Rich. It is his clause. Or,
if you want it changed, submit a comment.
From: Boaz Shahar [mailto:boazs@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 7:01 AM
To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1); Steve Haddock; 'Grow, Bob';
Subject: RE: Clause 49 /A/ /K/ /R/ on XGMII question
If so, why does the XGXS have to distinguish between /A/'s in a lane when
one of the /A/ in the other lanes is erroneous to /A/ in a lane when all /A/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 7:46 PM
> To: Steve Haddock; 'Grow, Bob'; jgaither@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Subject: RE: Clause 49 /A/ /K/ /R/ on XGMII question
> The RS doesn't do anything with /E/s that occur during idle.
> Actually, the
> RS doesn't have any error counting facility. Therefore, it
> doesn't matter
> whether it treats an /A/ /K/ /R/ during idle as an /E/ or an /I/.