| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
All,
Not sure this message got
forwarded to the reflector, so forwarding.
Regards,
John
From: Kolesar, Paul
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011
11:53 AM
To: John D'Ambrosia;
STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion of
Objectives
John and
group,
The
objectives are on the right track, but there are a few grammatical and clarity
issues.
The
first is an issue with the wording at the end of each. The phrase “up to
at least” is illogical and confusing because it combines words that specify
maxima (i.e. up to) with words that specify minima (i.e. at least). While
this phraseology may be following some precedent of former objectives, it only
serves to cloud the real intent. In the past these objectives have always
been interpreted as the requirements for minimum reach. Therefore I
propose that they each simply state it as such by replacing “lengths up to at
least” with “lengths of at least”.
Further,
I do not know what is intended by the phrase “for links consistent with
lengths”. Why use the word “consistent”? Is there a perception of
some increased flexibility or some other advantage? Please explain.
If the advantage is ambiguity, I would prefer stating objectives more
crisply.
Unless
your rationale for this word choice is compelling, I propose combining these two
issues into the following new phrase: “for link lengths of at least”.
Lastly,
it would be simpler and clearer to place all the adjectives describing “traces”
before the noun rather than some before and some after. Rearranging these
yields ”over improved FR-4 copper traces”.
With all
three of these changes, the two draft objectives become:
·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
improved FR-4 copper traces for links lengths of at least “X” m.
·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
copper twin-axial cables for links lengths of at least “Y” m.
Of
course all these grammatical improvements do not address the main issues which
are the values of X and Y. But that is what study groups are
for.
Regards,
Paul
Kolesar
From: John D'Ambrosia
[mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011
12:00 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
[802.3_100GCU] Discussion of Objectives
All,
I wanted to try and foster some discussion on the reflector
regarding objectives for the project to help all focus their planning of
presentations for March.
So what do we appear to have consensus on so
far?
a)
We are in a study group looking at 100GbE over
backplane and copper twin-ax
b)
Legacy support indicates broad market potential would be
aided by 4 lane solutions
What appears to need further consensus building? Well
the big ones would seem to be reach for both backplane and cu cabling
objectives.
So if we can combine where we appear to have consensus with
what we need to resolve, the following two statements could be used as strawmans
for objectives for the group to work towards (leaving the reach #’s as variables
for now):
·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
copper traces on improved FR-4 for links consistent with lengths up to at least
“X” m.
·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
copper twin-axial cables for links consistent with lengths up to at least “Y”
m.
Feedback?
John