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

RE: RE: 850nm-4WDM-1.25Gbaud


I was on the conference call even though my name was not listed in the
minutes.  If you remember, I was the one that stated that your chances of a
separate PAR were probably not that good, but that you had other means, such
as a consortium, to continue this work.

I was not disagreeing with the rest of Ed's email, just the following
statement made in the first couple of paragraphs.

To quote Ed: "At initial selection, we will try to select seven proposals,
then narrow down to four.  As you said, there are only three; therefore, we
need four more to go at the initial proposal."

The IEEE does not need seven PMDs for the initial proposal.  The initial
proposal may only contain three or four PMDs.  It may only contain two PMDs.
The motion that was made in Albuquerque was to reduce the number of PMDs to
seven, not increase the number of PMDs to seven. :-)  If 2, 3, or 4 PMDs
satisfy the TF voters in July, then that will be the number of PMDs we move
forward with.

On another note... what the 10GEA decides, does not supercede what the IEEE
decides.  The 10GEA may take any stance it likes on what PMDs should be
included with 802.3ae, but it is ultimately up to the task force to decide
which PMDs will be included in the standard.  That said, ignoring that
information would be a mistake.


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Kardont@xxxxxxx [mailto:Kardont@xxxxxxx]
		Sent:	Monday, April 17, 2000 12:09 AM
		To:	stds-802-3-hssg-pam@xxxxxxxx
		Subject:	Re:  RE: 850nm-4WDM-1.25Gbaud

		In a message dated 4/17/00 4:24:35 AM,
bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
		>I hate to break it to you, but your logic is backwards. :-)
The 802.3ae TF
		>does not have to select 7 PMDs in July.  If the TF only
selects 3 PMDs in
		>July to proceed forward with, then the chance of other PMD
being added to
		>the standards work after July is very unlikely.


		Ed's logic is correct: you just did not understand correctly
what Ed said, 
		perhaps because you did not participate in a conference call
last Tuesday 
		April 11.

		In that conference call Jay said that the GEA had decided
that there will be 
		only 3  solutions (the ones that Jay mentions in his email)
and that the 
		resolution Taken by the 802.3ae in Albuquerque (to restrict
in July 2000 the 
		number of proposals to no more than seven) was dead and
superseded by the 
		GEA's resolution.

		It is with this background in mind that you have to read
Ed's email. It will 
		be interesting to hear what the end users will have to say
about the logic of 
		the IEEE   if and when the 802.3ae Task Force will approve a
10GbE Standard 
		with no 850nm solutions in it.

		Jaime E. Kardontchik