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

RE: Here's a new idea:

See my comments mixed in below

At 12:12 AM 5/4/00 -0500, James M. Polk wrote:
>I'll take that challenge -- however, because I don't work for this 
>company, I cannot claim with a paycheck that it is accurate: IBM 
>apparently has 300,000 users of STP that doesn't have 8 conductors. I 
>understand that Ethernet is either installed or planned throughout the 
>company (again, only rumors)...
>But this is *all* of one very big customer.
>Another large company that I believe is migrating from STP-TR to Ethernet 
>is Taco Bell. I don't know how many users they have -- but they aren't 
>small -- and again, this represents *all* of a customer.

The answer to this is very simple.
There is no mention much less any requirement to support Type 1 cabling in 
the Objectives List.

>At the end of the day, do I think it's a large number of installations 
>that are affected by this? No. But I don't see why yet, we shouldn't 
>attempt to include everyone. Putting DTE Power on the 4 signaling pairs 
>accomplishes this. As without those 4 pairs -- you don't have any Ethernet.

There are many things that we could do that some people think would be just 
wonderful and worthwhile but we developed an Objectives list by our 
consensus process. We will proceed on the basis of what is on that list 
unde the assumption that the list provides the best assurance the group has 
that their efforts will make it through the balloting process and become a 
consensus Standard.

>If the Engineering exists and can be proven to work utilizing the 
>signaling pairs -- why isn't that the mode this committee pursuing?

There has been no presentation that the engineering exists. There is a HUGE 
difference between a demonstration of an example that works and proof that 
slapping all existing hardware together will work with the addition of new 
components that have reasonable tolerances. System modeling and extensive 4 
corner lab testing that doesn't chew up the margins allocated for other 
items is the thing that is needed. That is the information that has not 
been offered up to the committee.


>This is what I'm scratching my head about.... at least ever since York.