Unconfirmed Minutes of the HSSG meeting in La Jolla, CA
3/10/96
Meeting brought to order by Howard Frazier at 7:00pm.
55 people were in attendance.
The stated that the agenda for the meeting was: Review the
PAR, Objectives, and 5 Criteria in preparation for the
plenary.
Mike McConnell volunteered for secretary for meeting.
A foil of the Objectives for the HSSG were presented by
Howard Frazier. Howard indicated that the items were not
listed by priority but rather goals of the work proposed.
Each item was reviewed in turn by Howard. Item number 8 was
re-worded from the prior presentation to enhance the clarity
of the intent.
A question was asked. “Why are we supporting half
duplex?.” Howard Frazier responded that it was felt that is
was worth doing and didn’t add significant effort. Item #12
which poses the question about network diameter was
discussed and included a discussion on the history and
reasons that lead up to it’s inclusion.
Bernard Daines pointed out that a recent article in Data
Communication magazine erroneously stated that the HSSG is
planning to enlarge the packet size. Howard emphasized that
enlargement of packet size is specifically not an objective
of this effort.
Howard Frazier distributed copies of the January meeting
minutes which contained the EMail reflectors. Howard showed
foils identifying stds-802-3-hssg@mail.ieee.org and
howard.frazier@sun.com as valid EMail addresses for contact.
Howard stated that we need to get everyone in the 802
community aware of what this group is doing. Howard Frazier
and Howie Johnson will need to go to each dot group and
present and collect questions. We will need to respond to
these questions by Wednesday night.
The 5 Criteria was presented next. Howard Frazier stated
that all project in 802 must address and answer these 5
questions. This has been distributed on EMail for review.
1) Broad Market Potential
Howard Frazier changed the number of EMail participants
from 165 to greater than 210. Next discussion on the
xxx and yyy place holders in the description.
Discussion followed on why we don’t ask who is going to
implement this and use those numbers. This lead to a
discussion on balanced cost. Howard took a survey of
how many plan to participant in the standardization
effort for the xxx and yyy values. xxx was counted as
39 and yyy was 28.
2) Compatibility with IEEE
Geoff Thompson offered comments on what portion of the
application space will be addressed by CSMA/CD,
specifically half duplex and relationship of network
diameter. Howard Frazier responded that issues such as
changing some parameters will be decided within the
scope of the work.
3)Distinct Identity
Jim Carlo ask the reason for calling out STP and not
UTP. Howard Johnson responded that Fibre Channel has
several phys such as coax and fiber. Geoff Thompson
suggested that a better choice would be to re-word with
“balanced pair cable” rather than STP. Glenn Connery
stated that a broad base of expertise in the supplier
and customers doesn’t state forcefully enough that
people have been doing more than just speeding things
up to see if it works. Discussion followed on how to
re-state the size of the 10/100 CSMA/CD market to
convey how important this work is to the users. This
data was inserted into the foils.
4)Technical Feasibility
A correction was made to change 1.25Gb/s to 1.25gbaud
by Colin Mick. Hon Wah Chin suggested changing wording
which resulted in striking “be requested” from the
text. Glenn Connery asked if 1000 or 800 has been
fixed. Howard Frazier stated that 1000 was selected.
Geoff Thompson stated that the second paragraph was a
little weak. Howard Johnson suggested some additional
wording around the demonstrated feasibility statement.
Glenn Connery stated that reasonable testing hasn’t
been addressed by this wording. Howard Frazier took the
action item to add some additional wording to the
paragraph for the next meeting. Paul Nicholich asked do
we want to say anything about EMC or our ability to
meet it. Geoff Thompson indicated that anyone selling
equipment intends to meet those requirements and thus
they intend to comply. Sheto VanDorn stated that ANSI
temperature and humidity and environmental items are
not included in the ANSI documents. Geoff Thompson said
that those requirements also be met it just requires a
careful design. Paul Nicholich added a statement that
vendors are meeting this EMC requirement and thus it is
technically feasible to expect this to comply too.
Howard Frazier suggest some initial wording which was
followed by discussion on minor wording changes. The
finial text was “Vendors of full speed fibre channel
components and systems are building reliable products
which operate at 1.06gbaud and which meet worldwide
regulatory and operational requirements.”
5) Economic Feasibility
General discussion began on short haul vs long haul.
Geoff Thompson suggested “Cost for coaxial based short
run copper links are well established for full speed
fibre channel.” “The cost model for horizontal copper
has not yet been established.” Howard Frazier agreed
to add this to the 5 criteria.
Next the PAR form was reviewed. The expected vote date will
be Thursday and the group formed will be 802.3z.
Specifically noted: Target competition of December 98.
Howard Johnson suggested a modification of the purpose to
add “who” is targeted to, i.e. the existing CSMA/CS
customer base. Geoff Thompson suggested that any changes
would make it worse not better.
Howard Frazier discussed the patent issues indicating that
he has received a letter from IBM stating they will grant
licenses on a non-discriminating basis and that would
satisfy the IEEE requirements on the matter.
Howard Frazier reviewed the entire PAR form and took that
action item to fix the necessary wording changes. There was
discussion with minor changes to wording made. Jim Bunder
suggested a change to item number seven to replace
“existing standard” and add “while maintaining maximum
compatibility with the installed base of 10/100 CSMA/CD
nodes, research and development, and market understanding.”
Geoff Thompson replaced “market understanding” with
“,network operation and management”. Howard Frazier will
edit the document for presentation during the week.
Howard Frazier opened the floor for anything anyone else
would like to address. There was no additional comment.
Howard then presented the technical presentation schedule
for the coming meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00pm
Unconfirmed Minutes of the HSSG meeting in La Jolla, CA
3/12/96 & 3/13/96
Meeting brought to order by Howard Frazier at 1:45pm.
Mike McConnell volunteered for secretary for meeting
Howard re-iterated the meeting scheduled for this afternoon
and the next morning. Today would begin the technical
presentations for the HSSG.
Del Hanson (HP) gave a presentation titled IEEE 802 Gb/s NMF
Links: 1.063gbd vs. 1.250 Gbd Line Rate Issues. Major issues
addressed were the areas of the trade offs in link speed and
link distance. Additional items were jitter associated with
the 10-wide interface. Questions from the floor on how much
extra distance can be gained by controlling the filling of
the fiber modal bandwidth.
Stan Swirhun (Vixel Corp) gave a presentation on Optical
Power Budget at 1.25Gb/s. Major issues addressed were,
issues associated with OFC (open fiber connection), TIA
underestimation of the Mulit Modal Bandwidth, experimental
tests at OC24 (1.244G) vs FC, discussion on optical budget
issues. and a proposed specification for the optical
connection, conclusion is that 1250Mb/s at 500M on 62NMF is
feasible with some work.
Pat Gilland, (Methode Electronics) gave a presentation on
Optical power budget for CD-Lasers. Major issued addressed
were specifics of ethernet optical requirements, results of
experiments performed at 1.06 and 1.25Gb/s on 500m and 1Km.
Questions on why 8B10B coding was selected for FC (mostly
influenced by data run lengths and other items).
Howard Frazier ask for a show of hands on how many people
plan to participate in the standards process (81) and how
many companies plan to participate (54). This information
will be used to update the Broad Market Potential portion of
the 5 criteria document.
Allistair Black (Gadzoox) made a presentation on The Fiber
Channel Jitter Issue. Major Issues addressed were sources
of and absorption of jitter and what changes we may wish to
make to the jitter specification to better fit our
requirements while still maintaining BER >10-12.
Miscellaneous experimental and empirical test results were
presented and discussed.
Sailesh K. Rao (SDE) made a presentation of 1Gb/s Over 4-
Pair - Preliminary Simulation Results. Major issues
addressed were a Split Passband Proposal for operation over
4 pair category 5 wire. This presentation differed from his
previous proposal in changing to a 9 level signaling from 8
level. Supporting calculations and considerations were
included. Questions about what the latency and
synchronization and how they relate to the work in the T2
WG. There are still a number of issues that need to be
investigated further. Questions about cost are expected to
be 2X that of T2.
Michael Jay Lieb (Technitrol) made a presentation on Gigabit
Transmission Over Copper Media. Major issues addressed were
phase frequency distortion present in twisted pair, issues
associated with eye patterns, along with numerous example of
eye patterns under various conditions. Included in the
presentation were some results of eye patterns at 1.125Gb/s
on UTP Cat 5. Question on output voltage was 800mVpp.
Conclusion is that category 5 cable can support a 2 level,
25 meter cable can be achieved. Question on what the fixed
optimized cable length was, 150m.
Minutes of Milpitas,CA (Jan 11 & 12) meeting distributed.
Richard Taborek (Amdahl) made a presentation on Use of
SOP/EOP codes, and OFC. Major issues addressed were a how
the various signaling aspects of Fiber Channel would be
applied to ethernet and where some minor changes to some of
these would benefit the HSSG effort. Issues associated with
8B10B coding were addressed in detail along with OFC
operation. Additional discussion on synchronization, auto
negotiation, link issues and various delimiters. General
discussion on how and when auto-negotiation occurs followed
with issues associated with RJ45’s and fiber applications.
Also the issue associated with 8B10B symbols and the auto-
negotiation sequence.
Andreas Bechtolsheim (Granite Systems) made a presentation
on 8B10B Coding and Delimiters for 1000Mbit/sec Ethernet.
Major issues addressed were what the minimum subset of the
8B10B coding table would be useful for use by ethernet.
Special focus on delimiter size and implementation.
Discussion on DAP characters and Fill roles and utilization.
Howard Frazier adjourned the meeting after re-iterating the
schedule for tomorrow.
Continuation of HSSG meeting La Jolla, CA 3/13/96
Howard Frazier brought the meeting to order at 1:00pm
The agenda for the afternoon was presented and discussed:
1) Continue Technical Agenda 1:00 - 3:00
2) Review Objectives % PAR & 5 Criteria 3:00 - 4:00
3) Respond to other WG Comments 4:00 - 4:55
4) HSSG position on PAR & 5 Criteria 4:55 - 5:10
5) ANSI Offer of Cooperation 5:10 - 5:30
6) Cooperation with 802.12 5:30 - 6:00
7) Sub Task Force Organization 6:00 -6:15
8) Plan for Interim Meeting 6:15 - 6:25
9) Affirm Minutes from Jan Interim Mtg 6:25 - 6:30
10) Adjourn 6:30
Howard noted that item #3 must be completed prior to 5:00pm
as required by 802 so presentations must stay on schedule.
Jonathan Thatcher (IBM) made a presentation on Thoughts on
gigabit Ethernet Physical . Major issues addressed were a
brief history of the Fiber Channel developments continuing
with background information on OFC, Link Acquisition, and
Coding. Additional material on common problem areas was
supplied. The conclusion was to suggest that HSSG adopt the
existing Fiber Channel operating speed. Western Digital
maintains an FTP site that contains the spec for the 10B
Coding.
Howard Frazier (SUN) made a presentation on Scaling CSMA/CD
to 1000Mb/s, Experimental Results. Major issues addressed
were experimental testing using 100BASE-FX over long lengths
to approximate the shorter lengths that 1000Mb/s would be
used in. Conclusions were that increasing the slot time and
carrier extensions have a minor adverse effect on throughput
for packets greater than minimum size.
Howie Johnson presented two foils obtained from David Allen
and Richard Prentice of TI detailing contacts for the more
information on Fiber Channel.
Fiber Channel Association phone number is 1-800-272-4618
X3T11 Chair Roger Cummings
Distributed Processing Technology
140 Candace Drive
Maitland, FL 32751
Phone: 407-830-5522 X348
Fax 407-260-5366
Email: cummings_roger@dpt.com
Fibre Channel ftp sites:
10 Bit Technical Report
ftp://fission.dt.wde.com/pub/standards/10bit/postscript
Fibre Channel Reflectors
TO:majordomo@
, EX: (majordomo@think.com)
Suscribe
fibre-channel-ext@think.com
10bit-owner@dt.wde.com
stds-802-3-hssg@mail.ieee.org
ANSI Documents
Global Engineering 800-854-7179
WWW
http://www.amdhal.com/ext/CARP/FCA/FCA.html
http://www.cern.ch/HSI/fcs/fca.htm
http://www-atp.llnl.gov/atp/telecom.html
Mohan V. Kalkunte (AMD) made a presentation on Scaling
CSMA/CD to 1000Mb/s, Simulation Results. This presentation
was a continuation of Howards presentation based on
simulation results. The conclusion reached was that
simulation model results match closely with experimental
results achieved in Howards presentation.
Mart L. Molle (UC Riverside, CS Dept) made a presentation on
Reducing the Effects of Propagation Delay on CSMA/CD
Networks. Major issues addressed how to reduce the “cost”
of collisions in ethernet. Several techniques were presented
and discussed pointing out merits and drawbacks. Conclusions
drawn were that incoming collision deletion could be
incorporated and maintain computability with standard
CSMA/CD DTEs. This approach requires all the repeaters
within a single collision domain to implement this
functionality. Discussion and several questions followed the
presentation.
Ahmad Nouri (Compaq, IPG) made a presentation on Gigabit
Ethernet Survey. Major issues addressed were the results of
a market survey commissioned to investigate the interest
level in gigabit ethernet. Parameters of the survey were
covered along with the results of the survey. Conclusions of
the survey indicated that interest in 100Mb/s was growing
very rapidly and 86% of the respondents expressed interest
in GB Ethernet after hearing about it. Ahmad agreed to put
the original questions ask in the survey on the HSSG
reflector for all to inspect.
Wayne Rickard’s presentation on ANSI offer of cooperation
was deferred until later. to allow time to address the
responses to the PAR and 5 Criteria.
Howard Frazier presented the Proposed Objectives. Discussion
on the stated objectives were generally confined to
clarification and minor commentary with no specific
objections detailed. Bernard Daines did however ask about
the wording associated with Fibre Channel suggesting that
some clarification of our intent with respect to existing
Fibre Channel components. Howard Frazier summarized that FC
was the basis. Another item questioned was associated with
the objective of 25m of copper pair. The questioner believed
that 100m should be the goal.
Item #1 was discussed in greater detail. Jonathan Thatcher
suggested that accepting Fibre Channel as is in the best
interest of the HSSG. Additional commentary continued on the
pros and cons of working for the 1.25G speed vs the 1.063G
speed.
A straw poll on 1.0625G vs 1.25G rate was taken
1.0625G 17
1.25G 38
Abstain 6
Item #11b was addressed next. Howard took commentary from
the floor on the subject of if the decision on of 25m or
100m should be addressed now or later in the task group.
Most commentary concerned the inclusion of 25m being a valid
solution or goal of the group.
A straw poll was taken on:
Do you want to decide between 25m and 100m copper links now
or wait until we form a Task Force.
Now 7
Later 56
Item #13 regarding IEC/ISO 11801 was discussed and Geoff
Thompson gave a brief summary of the contents of the
document.
Motion by Shimon Muller
Second by Bernard Daines
Reaffirm Proposed Objectives as written
Y 61
N 0
A 3
The motion passed
Discussion then turned to the 5 criteria. Howard ask for
comments and concerns on:
1) Broad Market Potential -No response.
2) Compatibility with IEEE Standard 802.3 - No Response.
3) No Response however it will need to be addressed later.
4) Technical Feasibility - Gadi Lahat ask for a
clarification on text added Sunday night (underlined text)
5) Economic Feasibility - Howard indicated that a previous
comment will need to be addressed later.
The PAR was presented:
No comments on page one
Howard suggest the paragraph 7 may need some additional
revisions to better focus the wording. Howard also displayed
the letter from IBM indicating that they are willing to meet
the IEEE requirements regarding licensing of patents that
may be included in the HSSG effort. Paragraph 9b was read
and explained also.
Specific Comments from other working groups were addressed
next.
Responses to Comments received by the 802.3 HSSG regarding
the 802.3 Gigabit PAR.
Comment: Gigabit Ethernet needs priority. The lack of
priority is a flaw in 802.3 that will become fatal at an
operating speed of 1Gb/s, due to the need to aggregate
multiple lower speed links together and support multiple
services in a backbone application. Priority should be
addressed in the gigabit PAR, and not left for separate work
item.
Response: The 802.3 HSSG does not agree that the lack of a
priority mechanism constitutes a fatal flaw in the CSMA/CD
access method regardless of the operating speed. The 802.3
HSSG believes it would not be appropriate for this study
group to further investigate this subject.
Comment: Need to define another operating speed (100< s <
1000), because there will be a significant cost advantage
for the sub-gigabit Ethernet, particularly when the switch
and bridge cost/bandwidth trade-offs are considered.
Response: The 802.3 HSSG believes that it is not
constructive to standardize multiple operating speeds with
in the same power of 10Mb/s because this would impair multi-
vendor interpretability. The HSSG also believes that the
cost advantage of a sub-gigabit system will diminish over
time. The HSSG believe that experience with ATM and Fibre
Channel validate this position.
Comment: Since CSMA/CD cannot be used in networks of useful
size, there is no distinct identity since Gigabit Ethernet =
Full Duplex = 802.12
Response: Several presentations have been given to the HSSG
which demonstrate that CSMA/CD at 1000Mb/s can be used in
networks of useful size, and the HSSG has established
specific objectives regarding the continued support for
CSMA/CD within 802.3z. The 802.3z project is definitely not
limited to Full Duplex operation.
Comment: Gigabit Ethernet is not needed since there is going
to be a new project to develop a new MAC that will coalesce
everything into one standard.
Response: No presentation have been made of which HSSG is
aware concerning this “new MAC”, and the 802.3 HSSG
believes that the virtues of the CSMA/CD MAC have been amply
demonstrated in the market place.
Comment: There should be one and only one 802 standard with
an operating speed of one gigabit.
Response: The 802.3 HSSG firmly believes that there is a
very large user community which will be best served by a
gigabit supplement to the 802.3 standard, and that this
sufficient justification for this project. This assertion is
well supported by the data provided in the response to the
“Broad Market Potential” criteria supplied with the 802.3z
PAR, and by market survey data presented to the HSSG.
Comment: The second paragraph of “3. Distinct Identity”
implies that there are 60 million 10/100 Mb/s agile CSMA/CD
nodes in existence which is untrue.
Response: Strike 10/100.
Comment: The last sentence of “5. Economic Feasibility”
implies that the cost model for copper horizontal cabling
runs has not been established, which is untrue.
Response: change the sentence to read. “while the cost
model for the horizontal copper cabling is well established,
the cost model for 1000Mb/s physical layers which will
operate on horizontal copper cabling has not yet been firmly
established. Presentations have been given to the HSSG which
suggest a cost multiple of 2X relative to 100BASE-T2.
Comment: As drafted, the PAR scope would allow a total
revision of the MAC operation. It does not even require that
the MAC defined be CSMA/CD. The scope should be altered to
align it to the intent described under “2. Compatibility.”
Response: Modify first sentence of “Scope” as follows.
[Define] carrier sense multiple access with collision
detection (CSMA/CD) media access control (MAC) [parameters
and] minimal augmentation of its operation.
Comment: The study group has not currently decided between
using a limited distance (30-50m) or modifying the MAC to
increase the network diameter (200m). If the MAC is not
changed, there has been no data presented to show that
Market Potential of such a limited distance shared LAN. It
is not even clear that such a limited distance fulfills the
functional requirements. On the other hand, there has been
no examination of the impact on performance of the changes
required to support the 200m distance. In shared mode, the
performance increase could be drastically less than 10X. It
should be shown that either the 200m network can provide a
reasonable performance or that there is sufficient market
for the small network.
Response: Multiple detailed analyses of CSMA/CD performance
as presented on 3/13/96 from credible technical sources have
convinced this committee that operation at a 200m diameter
is feasible, and the characteristics of such a network are
understood.
Comment: 802.12 primary concern is in the area of distinct
identity. Distinct identity should be focused on solutions
to distinct problems, not distinct solutions to the same
problem. the current distinct identity presentation with
this PAR does not address what distinct user problem it is
solving. Of particular concern is the high overlap between
this and 802.12a. Both will cover full duplex operation over
Fibre Channel based PMDs. This concern could be addressed by
cooperation to product a single specification covering the
PMD, auto-negotiation, and full duplex operation.
Response: The 802.3 HSSG appreciates the concerns expressed
by the 802.12 WG and will address them more fully during the
closing 802.3 plenary.
Comment: Some of the objectives and technical choices do not
appear to be consistent. The distance objective is 500m and
the statement “Customers in many cases be able to re-use
their existing fiber that has been installed in accordance
with ISO/IEC 11801.” is made. However, the current
distance on 62.5 micron fiber for Fiber Channel is 300m. The
speed increase will drop that distance to 230m. While 50
micron fiber would support a distance closer to 500m, the
vast majority of currently installed fiber in the US and
Europe is 62.5 micron. No data has been presented to
indicate the distribution of distance in installed fiber.
Increasing the speed at the expense of distance on 62.6
micron fiber is a disservice to the user. Users may benefit
more from being able to use their existing cable than the
25% greater data rate.
Response: The objective of 802.3z is a 500m span over
multi-mode fiber. If during the life span of the 802.3z task
force it is proven that this goal in not achievable, this
objective will be modified. Task Force objectives lists are
not part of the PAR application process.
Comment: Further, we are concerned about the technical
feasibility of the speed increase. The Fibre Channel
committee has been struggling with jitter issues on the FC-0
interface at the current data rate. They have just recently
worked out a compromise. While several transceiver suppliers
have indicated an ability to create higher speed
transceivers, there has been no indication that the chips on
the other side of the MII can tolerate the effect of the
speed increase. The Study Group has not reviewed the FC-0
interface, nor any other Fibre Channel specifications to
determine the impact of the increase.
Response: Even a modest decrease in the rise/fall times of
the transceivers and chips used in gigabit links will
substantially improve overall jitter performance. Over the
expected life of this standard it is entirely reasonable to
anticipate such developments, particularly in light of the
act that the 802.3 project will not have to contend with
certain installed base compatibility issues that may have
tied the hands of the ANSI committee. Furthermore, the Fibre
Channel Jitter Study group was created to deal with the
issues created by the Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop
topology. This loop topology is not applicable to 802.3.
Howard took a straw poll concerning those in favor of
writing PAR for a project with a range or specific operating
speed.
Range 23
Specific 31
Abstain 2
Motion: Shimon Muller Accept the Responses to comments as
presented and forwarded to 802 WG chairs.
Second Colin Mick. Motion passed by acclimation
The purpose (paragraph 7) is modified to “ ... installed
base of 10/100 CSMA/CD nodes previous investments in
research and development and principles of network operation
and management.
Motion: Rebecca Farley Motion to Affirm the PAR as modified
to 802.3 for approval
Second Esser
Y 48
N 0
A 0
Motion: Colin Mick motion to affirm 5 criteria as modified
and forward to 802.3 for approval and forwarding to exec.
Second Daines
Y 52
N 0
A 0
Wayne Rickard (Emulex) made a presentation on ANSI X3T11
Liaison Report. Issues covered were on the ANSI groups
interest in working with the HSSG in the development of a
standard. The study group expressed interest in establishing
a liaison to ANSI X3T11 but no one volunteered to act as
such a liaison.
(Continuation of discussion on liaison with ANSI Fibre
channel group, minutes taken by David Law)
Geofff suggested that if a liaison is formed approval would
have to go up to the executive. Geoff then went on to
describe his experience of being a liaison. A discussion
then ensued on the need for a liaison.
A quick show of hands on the need for a liaison showed
approx. 25 for, 0 against.
Howard then asked for any volunteers, there were none.
Howard said he would ask again in the 802.3 plenary on
Thursday.
Co-operation with 802.12
Howard stated that an interest had been expressed by 802.12
in the HSSG work, and in particular Full Duplex, as there
may be significant common ground. He and Geoff were
approached by some members of the executive committee
including the chair of 802.12 and they worked together to
draft a "Statement of Principle". Howard then put up the
slide containing the Statement of Principle (see attachment
####).
##### Need to add slide #####
There was then much discussion about the statement, issues
raised included what to do with this statement and what
exactly the statement meant. Did it mean joint authorship,
maybe joint voting?. Also would the final document be a
802.12 or a 802.3 document and was it co-operation on a
common full-duplex PHY or was it more fundamental.
Shimon Muller then proposed to table the Statement. A
discussion the ensued around the fact that if the HSSG PAR
was approved at the executive meeting on Thursday evening
the members of the HSSG group would form a task
force. The HSSG would then never meet again and the
Statement could never
be taken off the table. It was concluded that this would be
acceptable as the Statement would be considered again in the
802.3 plenary on Thursday.
Ian Crayford asked who is eligible to vote. Howard stated
that this is a HSSG vote, it is procedural, the 50% rule
applies.
The vote was then taken.
Moved: Shimon Muller
Seconder: Gadi Lahat
Yes:50 No:16 Abstain:4
The Statement was tabled.
Sub Task Force Operation
Howard Frazier presented a slide with a proposal for the sub
task force arrangements (See attachment ####). Howard stated
that in the past sub task forces have worked well because of
the parallel work that is performed. There was then some
discussion of the detail of the slide.
##### Need to add slide #####
Plan for Interim meeting
Howard Frazier discussed the arrangements for the next
interim meeting. He stated that an arrangement similar to
the January Interim meeting, when Full Duplex and T2 also
met in the same week and at the same location, would be
preferable and that Rich Seifert has suggested the week of
the 20th of May. So far there was one offer to host the
meeting. Details would be finalised and then presented at
the 802.3 plenary on Thursday.
Confirmation of last meeting minutes
Confirmation of the last minutes was moved and seconded,
they were approved by affirmation.
Adjournment
Adjournment of the meeting was moved and seconded, this was
approved by affirmation.