This is being forward on Stuart's behalf as his
restrictive notice caused the email to be bounced. Thanks,
Brad
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Neither the TIA - where horizontal
cabling extends from the cross-connect to the TO - nor ISO/IEC - where
horizontal cabling subsystem is the equivalent - appears to be
correct.
Is it not the "horizontal balanced
cabling channel" or the "balanced cabling horizontal channel"?
Regards
SJReeves
Stuart J. Reeves
Technical Manager
_________________________________________
YOUR NETWORKS - OUR STRENGTH!
KRONE UK celebrating 25 Years of making
the right connections
_________________________________________
KRONE (UK) Technique Limited
Runnings Road
Kingsditch Trading Estate
Cheltenham
Gloucestershire
GL51 9NQ
U.K.
Email: sreeves@krone.co.uk <
mailto:sreeves@krone.co.uk <mailto:sreeves@krone.co.uk> >
Tel: +44 (0)1242 264 471
Fax: +44 (0)1242 264 652
Mobile: +44 (0)7768 463 265
The term ISO uses
is "Balance Cabling" (Clause 6 of 11801, 2002) and TIA uses "Horizontal
Cabling", which is used in the Data Center document to identify the cabling. I
have been reminded often by others that we should use ISO
designations.
Terry
I agree that "on
horizontal structured cabling" probably needs a tweak. It could
possibly be interpreted as requiring 100 m operation for all supported
media. As Terry points out, it doesn't really reflect the data center as a
focus of broad market potential.
Regards,
Pat
Pat – thanks for
the clarifications – I’d missed the fact that speed wasn’t mentioned (must
be still suffering from Italian jet-lag). Scopes should be broad but
clear. The CX4 scope is probably a good model. “based on” is
different than saying it must implement it. (under this scope a
10GBASE-CX4 could incorporate other line codes, etc.) Similarly
“working over the wiring types used in structured cabling” is a bit
different than the text as written, which enters into a more specific
description of “structured cabling” (we had a little discussion in
Italy where some had a
very narrow understanding of what that means).
I’ll have to
think a little about an alternative, but I think we’re on the same
principle: speed & wiring types define 10GBASE-T, but the detailed
description is for the objectives.
-----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.