| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jeff,
Brad can probably add a lot more but here's my response
-
1) Yes, guidance from Brad as to how the larger 802.3 body
will view it is that it needs to be "single" PHY
2) The selection will be done by voting at the task force
and the voters include PHY vendors, cabling/connector vendors, system vendors
and many others so it is not just PHY vendors
3) I would like to see the multiple PHY proposers come
together and put a consensus proposal on the table. If this happens we will
check if there is >75% support and if there is, we have the basis of
developing Draft 1.0 even though all the details you list may not have been
worked out.
4) In the absence of #3, what gets selected depends on how
people vote.
5) One set of channel models has been provided via the
reflector. A few others will be provided soon.
I think all of the factors you suggest in your bullet list
are probably being weighed by the participants and will factor in how they vote
though the importance they attach to each item in you list probably varies
significantly from individual to individual.
I highly recommend that interested parties ask for the
information relevant to them either via the reflector or via other
means.
As for item #3 in the above list, I think the six
proposals currently on the table have many similarities among them and I would
encourage the proposers to see if they can reach consensus to come up with a
common proposal. To summarize what I had mentioned earlier in my wrap up
presentation, five of the six proposals are based on PAM. Five of the six are
based on LDPC codes. There are differences in baud rate but these are small and
I can see this and a number of other issues being resolved over time and
possibly even after Draft 1.0.
If your proposal is on the wrong side of the majority on
either of these fronts, you either need to be working really hard to convince
others to change their minds or the chances that you will get to 75% are really
low. Please note that my statement is not based on
any philosophical belief that the majority is always "right". My statement
is a reflection of how the process in the IEEE works, if >75%
of the task force believes something is better, it will be accepted.
Sanjay
cell (650) 704-7686
office (408)
653-2235
From: stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG [mailto:stds-802-3-10gbt@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Jeff Warren Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:38 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GBT@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [10GBT] My final wrap-up presentation Sanjay / Brad,
Great wrap up presentation. It sounds like draft
1.0 coming out of the July 2004 plenary is very optimistic.
Since the 10GBASE-T Objectives will be met with a
single 10GBASE-T PHY do you agree that draft 1.0 should be based on a
unified "single" PHY proposal? If yes, what is
the agreed upon IEEE process to arrive at a single PHY proposal?
With a goal of producing draft 1.0 coming out of
the July 2004 plenary meeting (that's 5-weeks away) it seems like going
into the July plenary meeting that this "10GBASE-T PHY proposal down-selection
process" (i.e. from 5 to 1 or 2) should be agreed upon fairly soon via this
reflector.
Should this process factor in:
Maybe the place to start with on this "agreed
upon down-selection process" is a combination of ranking the above list and
adding to it. In either case it seems obvious that going into the July
meeting this process needs to be defined, or you run the risk of making a
sub-optimum decision or worse yet no decision that results in a delayed
draft 1.0 standard.
-
Jeff
|