Re: Signal vs. Idle debate (was: Here's a new idea)
"DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> As a standards committee member, I would put "must support the
> installed base of equipment without interference" as a higher
> priority than cost. The cost of ripping out existing gear is
> substantial. But what I have to say is less relevant than the
> decision by the committee to require compatibility with 10/100T.
This seems to be the key. I hope no one has advocated ripping out all
existing gear!! The question is whether the solution adopted should be
*optimized* for existing switches or for new products. The latter is
more important, I would claim.