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

Re: Why not have both





Paul,

The PAR is a brief document that contains little in the way of
technical detail. Mostly it's a bunch of boxes to check off.  I doubt
that we need to say anything about a pacing mechanism in the PAR.  Same
goes for the 5 Criteria.  They don't dive down into technical details.

The subject of pacing can be addressed in the objectives, and 
both you and I have proposed words for such an objective.

I said:

 4) Agree that a pacing mechanism of some sort can be employed
    if necessary to throttle the MAC's transmit data rate down to a
    rate which is compatible with the payload rate of a WAN PHY.

You said:

 4) Agree that a pacing mechanism be employed to throttle the MAC's 
    transmit data rate down to a rate which is compatible with the 
    payload of OC-192c/SDH-64.

Not a whole lot of difference, right?  My wording is less specific,
because I think that the objectives should give us some wiggle room.
However, I am confident that we can get consensus on some combination
of words that will satisfy the Study Group.  Needs a little tuning,
that's all.

Folks, I think we are getting somewhere.  Is anyone truly grossed out
by the idea of having two PHYs?  Are we really down to word-smithing
at this point?

Howard Frazier
Cisco Systems, Inc.