RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
Jonathan,
I agree with Shimon that 10GBASE-T is not an appropriate place for work that adds OAM to 10 Gig Ethernet. When placing "service to humanity" work in a group, one needs to consider whether the expertise of a group is a good match to the work. OAM adaptation isn't a good match to a PHY group.
If it is small and easy, than the OAM subtask force in 802.3ae should take it on. If the work extent is too difficult or not a good match there, then it should be considered as a separate project.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Shimon Muller; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
Because, Shimon, you know as well as any that the symbol error counters do not exist two layers above the PHY.
Also, just as with clause 24 and 36, 10 Gig needs to have the unidirectional aspects clarified during operation with OAM.
Besides, if there is anyone that understands the concept of "benefit to humanity," we have ample evidence that you do. ;-)
As 10 Gig passes the baton to 10GBASE-T, I beseech you guys to "do the right thing."
jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Shimon Muller [mailto:Shimon.Muller@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:47 AM
To: atuncay@solarflare.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org; Jonathan Thatcher
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
> OAM is implemented as a sublayer above the MAC, using frames. So,
> exactly what would be the trouble? Passing frames?
Precisely.
10GBASE-T is a PHY project. So why are we arguing about support or
non-support of functionality that is two layers above it?
I don't believe there is any need for an objective with regard to
OAM in 10GBASE-T. It's a non-issue.
Shimon.