RE: [10GBASE-T] Proposed modification to PAR scope
Pat/Brad/All-
Since the main thrust of the project (and focus of the Broad Market
Potential) is directed at the data center (even though there certainly
will be a market for horizontal cabling situations) I think the
revised scope needs a minor tweak. I think the word
"horizontal" should be deleted. I would also asked that
standardized cabling be added in. This would result in:
- Specify a Physical Layer (PHY) for operation at 10 Gb/s on standards
based structured copper cabling, using the existing Media Access
Controller, and with extensions to the appropriate physical layer
management parameters, of IEEE Std 802.3.
Geoff
At 05:26 PM 9/24/2003 -0600, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
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
- -----Original Message-----
- From: George Zimmerman
[mailto:gzimmerman@solarflare.com]
- Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:42 PM
- To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1); 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
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.
George Zimmerman
gzimmerman@solarflare.com
tel: (949) 581-6830 ext. 2500
cell: (310) 920-3860
-----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
George,
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:
Current scope:
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
CX4 scope:
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.
Regards,
Pat