Re: Speed motion
- To: stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxx, tdineen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Speed motion
- From: Thomas Dineen <tdineen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 10:00:57 -0700
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg-speed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I concur with Howards position as expresses in this message.
I beleive that we need to select specific objectives, which
include specific numeric values.
I think we are supposed to be writing objectives for the project (i.e.,
for the P802.3ae 10Gig Task Force, assuming one is formed), not for
the Higher Speed Study Group, which will hopefully finish it's work some
time before the Y2K bug renders us all unable to generate slideware and
exchange email. Maybe we should have an objective which says:
"The email thread from the stds-802-3-hssg-speed reflector shall
be preserved on acid free paper, so that future generations can
carry on the work."
Okay. That's (more than) enough sarcasm for one night.
We should opt for the "decide later what speed(s) we mean when we say
'10Gig'" only as a last resort, and only in the form of a short term
objective for the P802.3ae 10Gig Task Force. So, your motion could
read something like:
Decide between 10.000 Gb/s and 9.58464 Gb/s, or adopt both speeds,
once a task force has been formed.
We had a similar objective in the gigabit project. It read:
12. Decide between collision domain diameter of >= 50m or >= 200m
at the time we finished the HSSG, up until the first meeting of
the P802.3z Gigabit Task Force. At the July, 1996 meeting (in the
lovely college town of Enschede, NL) we changed this to:
12. Support maximum collision domain diameter of 200m.
by a unanimous vote. We took this course of action because there was no
consensus prior to the Enschede meeting.
So, we can defer the decision until later...But I Don't Think We Should.
The speed is important. It goes beyond "marketing glossies", as
product literature has been (unkindly) referred to. If we defer the
decision, I believe that the press is going to lambast us. 802.3 has
built up a solid reputation with the press as one of the few truly
effective standards committees. Defering the decision could seriously
errode our credibility, making us look mindless. Once you loose
credibility, it is VERY hard to get it back. I think we need to
find a way to get beyond the impasse we seem to have reached.
Maybe we should put up two motions in Montreal. One which says:
Adopt as an objective:
Support speed of 10.000 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface
and another which says
Adopt as an objective:
Support speed of 9.58464 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface
If neither pass, our children can carry on the work....
If both pass, we support both speeds, and decide just how to do that
once we form a task force.
If only one passes, then we know what speed we will be running at.