RE: [802.3ae] Proving PMD feasibility
Vipul:
You ask a fair and pertinent question. The committee hasn't defined what
constitutes a proof of technical feasibility, so this is just one voter's
opinion. I do not believe the proof requires demonstration of
"full-compliance".
I would grudgingly accept your schedule-friendly "proof" with one caveat, I
want what you list from more than one implementer. While others might
require the cost analysis, I would be satisfied with credible assurance from
the implementers that what we have specified will support Ethernet economics
(the low costs that have made Ethernet successful). Add a demonstration of
interoperability between independent implementations and my grudging support
would become enthusiastic.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Vipul Bhatt [mailto:vbhatt@finisar.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:55 PM
To: Bob Grow; stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
Subject: [802.3ae] Proving PMD feasibility
Bob,
Recently, I saw your concern echoed by others as well. Clearly, the
PMD community needs to sit up and address it. Yes, the 10G PMD
feasibility can be demonstrated, although I am afraid it's a little
late to organize this effort in a week. Yes, there is enough time to
do it by September.
It's important that we begin by defining expectations. What does a
"feasibility demonstration" mean to you at this stage?
At this stage, a schedule-friendly answer would be "showing test
results of a 10.3G link operating over the required distance,
showing a reasonable agreement between the link model and
measurements, and showing analysis to suggest that high yield and
low cost are likely to be achieved".
A schedule-unfriendly answer would be "showing full compliance and
interoperability".
Regards,
Vipul
Vipul Bhatt
Finisar Corporation
vbhatt@finisar.com
408-542-4113
======================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Grow, Bob
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:30 AM
> To: 'Ben Brown'; Danielle Lemay
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org'
> Subject: RE: [802.3ae] Oc-192 rate control
>
>
>
> Ben:
>
> I also hope it is validated as part of technical
> feasibility proofs, but
> this is insignificant compared to the technical
> feasibility challenges for
> our PMDs. I am not worried about the ability to
> implement the rate
> adaptation algorithm or that it will interoperate with another
> implementation. The rate adaptation was never on my list
> of technical
> feasibility concerns. I'm comfortable with the technical
> feasibility and
> and plans to demonstrate interoperability of XAUI, but am
> aware of no
> similar efforts for the MDI specifications of our PMDs.
> That's why I will
> be flipping my vote from Approve to Disapprove on this
> recirculation ballot.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@amcc.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 10:49 AM
> To: Danielle Lemay
> Cc: 'stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org'
> Subject: Re: [802.3ae] Oc-192 rate control
>
>
>
>
> Danielle,
>
> That's what we hope implementors will do as part
> of the Technical Feasibility portion of the standard
> process. :)
>
> Ben
>
<snip>