The scope we have seems perfectly fine,
and, in line with earlier scopes. As a reminder, here’s the scope
of 10GBASE-CX4
The scope of this project
is to specify additions to and appropriate modifications of IEEE Std 802.3 as
amended by IEEE Std
802.3ae-2002 (and any
other approved amendment or corrigendum) to add a copper Physical Medium
Dependent (PMD) option for 10
Gb/s operation, building
upon the existing 10GBASE-X Physical Coding Sublayer (PCS) and 10 Gigabit
Attachment Unit Interface
(XAUI) specifications.
Note that this scope is broad and could be
interpreted to be on any copper medium, but clearly Dan knows what his charter
is. I think we know what 10GBASE-T’s is as well. The current
scope, like the CX4 scope, gives the study group the flexibility to get the job
done without going down the line of what is “as specified” (is that
at the time of completion of the standard or at the starting time?) what are
extensions, etc.
I would oppose the change on the grounds
that the limitations really don’t improve clarity, only create ground for
argument.
-----Original Message-----
From: DOVE,DANIEL J
(HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:dan.dove@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24,
2003 2:08 PM
To: 'pat_thaler@agilent.com';
btolley@cisco.com; bradley.booth@intel.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Proposed
modification to PAR scope
I agree with Pat that we should tighten
the scope. I am thinking that even the current proposal might be a bit too
loose.
For example, "Specify a
Physical Layer (PHY) for operation at 10 Gb/s on horizontal structured copper cabling << as specified by
ISO 11801>>, using the existing Media Access Controller, and with extensions to the
appropriate physical layer management parameters, of IEEE Std 802.3."
-----Original Message-----
From: pat_thaler@agilent.com
[mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24,
2003 1:04 PM
To: btolley@cisco.com;
bradley.booth@intel.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Proposed
modification to PAR scope
I support the change. The current scope is too wide open
with respect to the type of PHY being defined. Almost anything, e.g. a 100
MHz PHY for coaxial cable, would fit within "to add a copper Physical
Layer (PHY) specification." Tweaking the text to make the intended
direction more clear is very appropriate. If there is a specific point in
Howard's suggestion that you feel is too limiting, then suggest an alternative.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tolley
[mailto:btolley@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24,
2003 9:57 AM
To: Booth, Bradley; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] Proposed
modification to PAR scope
Bradley
I do not support this change. I think the PAR and objectives already make it
perfectly clear that we are only defining a PHY.
Bruce
At 08:58 AM 9/24/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
Greetings,
Howard Frazier has proposed the
following modification to the scope of the 10GBASE-T PAR to help narrow the
focus and prevent the interpretation that the Study Group is planning to make
modifications to the MAC, and to make sure the Study Group is focused on the
horizontal structured copper cabling environment:
Specify a Physical Layer (PHY) for operation at 10 Gb/s
on horizontal structured copper cabling, using the existing
Media Access Controller, and with extensions to the appropriate
physical layer management parameters, of IEEE Std 802.3.
Is there any feedback on this
proposed modification?
Thanks,
Brad Booth
Chair, 10GBASE-T Study Group
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
internet: btolley@cisco.com
"Don't put your hiking boots in the oven unless you plan on eating
them."
Colin Fletcher, The Complete Walker
|