-----Original
Message-----
From:
pat_thaler@agilent.com
[mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September
24, 2003 3:28 PM
To:
George
Zimmerman; dan.dove@hp.com;
btolley@cisco.com; bradley.booth@intel.com; stds-802-3-10gbt@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [10GBASE-T] Proposed
modification to PAR scope
I think Dan's suggestion went too
far - very specific media descriptions (like references to 11801) have always
been for the objectives rather then the PAR. On the other hand, the existing
scope is much more broad than previous projects:
The scope of this project is
to specify additions to and appropriate modifications of IEEE Std 802.3
(including all approved amendments and corrigenda) to add a copper Physical
Layer (PHY) specification.
Howard's suggested
scope:
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
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.
The CX4 scope text is much more
similar to Howard's suggested scope. Both have a statement about the
speed. I can't recall any scope statement we have done for a PHY project that
omitted mention of speed. The CX4 scope doesn't say anything about
the type of copper, but it specifies that the PHY will be based on the X
PCS and the XAUI specs which limits it pretty clearly. For 10GBASE-T, the
intent to work over the wiring types used in structured cabling and the 10
Gbit/s speed are the defining factors.
Look at it this way. IEEE Std
802.3 already has many copper Physical Layer specifications. Therefore the job
listed in the current scope statement has already been done. If the PAR is
approved with the current scope, the scope will be published by the IEEE. How
would a reader seeing that scope know what the project was about and whether
they were interested? Howard's scope is a more clear statement of what we want
to do.
If something in Howard's scope is
too confining, then please propose an alternative that is reasonably
descriptive of the particular nature of this project - not something that
could describe 5 or more other projects we have already
done.