Re: [EFM] Changes to 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X PCS, 10G RS
Forwarded from Thomas Dineen.
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:34:06 -0800
From: Thomas Dineen <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [EFM] Changes to 100BASE-X and 1000BASE-X PCS, 10G RS
"For my part, if we were going to allow OAM to be an option, I would
strongly prefer that it be an option like 802.3ad, which a customer
can readily identify as a supported feature on a spec sheet, and not
an option that is buried in a PIC table and not readily exposed to the buyer."
From the stand point of 802.3 all we have control over is a standard,
revision to a standard, or amendment to a standard with clauses including pix tables!
We have little control, except via management, of how pix options
appear to the customer in a product ipmlementation.
Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>With great fear I here tread....
>As we prepare for this discussion a 2 weeks, let us remember that one of the
>principal reasons for standardizing 100M and 1G optics at 10km is that the
>parts available from the industry (when we started) could not be assured to
>be mutually interoperable. In many cases, under many conditions, they were
>probably interoperable. To create a standard that assures backward
>interoperability with parts that were themselves
>not-necessarily-interoperable... well, I think that this might be an effort
>In short, even if we choose to remove the OAM requirements, there is no
>assurance that even with the an identical PCS that the parts will "play
>For my part, if we were going to allow OAM to be an option, I would strongly
>prefer that it be an option like 802.3ad, which a customer can readily
>identify as a supported feature on a spec sheet, and not an option that is
>buried in a PIC table and not readily exposed to the buyer. Yes, I realize
>that 802.3ad was a project, not a clause. Yes, I understand that doing
>anything like this with OAM is not possible at this stage. That would have
>required a separate project.