RE: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
Bob,
I basically agree with you. I still believe we will need a chapter that
defines the general requirements for the RPR MAC to phy interface, and then
specific chapters for the phys we decide to support.
Leon
-----Original Message-----
From: RDLove [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:47 PM
To: Leon Bruckman; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question
With regard to Leon's statement:
"I recommend that the RPR WG come up with a list of "preferred" phys for RPR
(My opinion: SONET/SDH and GE) and define their interface with RPR in some
detail, and have a general statement for other phys."
I will risk being redundant, and restate my belief that each PHY we support
will require a chapter in our standard that very specifically states how we
interface to it. There is no need to list "preferred" PHYs. We will have
separate chapters discussing how to use the PHYs we support.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Bruckman" <leonb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Phy Layer question