RE: [10GBASE-T] EFM OAM...
Pat,
Please see comment 5700 in http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/d1_3/D1_3_comments_final.pdf
I recommend going directly to D1.414 to see the changes in C46. Especially note the request for comment regarding issues with lanes.
jonathan
| -----Original Message-----
| From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
| Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:23 PM
| To: Jonathan Thatcher; Shimon.Muller@sun.com;
| stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
| Subject: 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.
|