Re: Going the distance
Support for media selected from a published standard (ISO/IEC -11801 First
Edition 1995)
does not cover support for current proposed revisions.
Support for media selected from ISO/IEC -11801-A is a statement that allows
us to consider media that are proposed revisions; This objective allows HSSG
some flexibility.
The 802.3/z post-objective considerations were not planned i.e.,
802.3/z clearly intended to support 'only' the ISO/IEC-11801 published
standard.
----- Original Message -----
From: Grow, Bob <bob.grow@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Cornejo, Edward (Edward)' <ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx>; HSSG
<stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Going the distance
>
> If you review the minutes from Coeur d'Alene, the objective to "support
> media selected from ISO/IEC 11801" failed.
>
> I am still trying to understand why. I think some felt it would preclude
> using media not included in 11801 (yet in 802.3z, the same objective
didn't
> prevent us from defining operation on other fibers), others thought it
> should be 11801-A (these people wouldn't agree with your assertion that
new
> media defined in -A are included in the objective), etc. I will have to
> read up on my Robert's Rules to determine if the same motion would be in
> order, or if the only way to bring it back is to reconsider the motion.
> Obviously a similar but in some aspect substantivly different motion would
> be in order. I feel strongly we should have an objective similar to this.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cornejo, Edward (Edward) [mailto:ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 7:58 AM
> To: HSSG
> Subject: RE: Going the distance
>
>
>
> In Jonathan's notes, he mentions support media from ISO/IEC 11801.
Wouldn't
> this cover both the installed base and any new media accepted by ISO/IEC
> 11801. If so, I would see no reason to include the wording "installed
base"
> in our distance objective. Brian would you agree with this?
>
> Ed-Lucent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jonathan Thatcher[SMTP:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:08 PM
> > To: HSSG
> > Subject: RE: Going the distance
> >
> >
> > Just to make sure that everyone is keeping everything in perspective.
The
> > tabled motion on distance that we will pick up in Montreal currently
> > reads:
> >
> > Adopt as objectives for the Higher Speed Study Group:
> >
> > Provide a family of Physical Layer specifications which support a link
> > distance of:
> > a. At least 100 m on multimode fiber
> > b. At least 3 km on single mode fiber
> >
> > Move: Bob Grow
> > Second: Tom Dineen
> >
> > Rich Taborek, with Howard Frazier seconding, is proposing the following
as
> > an amendment/replacement:
> >
> > That the distance objective support the premises cabling plant distances
> > as
> > specified in ISO/IEC 11801
> >
> > The distances supported in ISO/IEC 11801 are:
> >
> > 100 m for horizontal cabling
> > 550 m for vertical cabling
> > 2-3 km for campus cabling
> >
> > Compare these to the 802.3z (Nov 96) objectives:
> >
> > 11. Provide a family of Physical Layer specifications which support a
link
> > distance of:
> >
> > a. At least 25 m on copper (100 m preferred)
> >
> > b. At least 500 on multimode fiber
> >
> > c. At least 3 km on single mode fiber
> >
> > and
> >
> >
> > 13. Support media selected from ISO/ IEC 11801
> >
> > For those of you that weren't there for 802.3z, the gigabit standard met
> > and
> > supports this last set of objectives! It wasn't particularly easy at
times
> > (in fact, for those of us who lived through it, we quip and wonder why
we
> > would ever want to do this again). In fact, had it not been for these
> > objectives, we might have -- no, we probably would have -- given up and
> > resolved on a much shorter set of distances. Howard Frazier, armed with
> > this
> > set of objectives, somehow managed to keep us going until we got it
done.
> > I
> > do not think I am over stating this!
> >
> > Everyone, please think long and hard about the implications of these
> > objectives on the future work of the HSSG. There are any number of
> > significant differences in these three sets. I will note only one: item
> > "b"
> > of the original motion (same as the 802.3z objective 11c) meets all the
> > requirements of the amendment to it.
> >
> > Having worked in a number of standards activities, I have come to
> > appreciate
> > the value of setting the objectives early in the process. These become a
> > guide, a challenge, and a metric by which much of the work is gauged. If
> > there is any ambiguity as to the intent of the objectives, we will be
> > doing
> > nothing but postponing the difficult decisions. If ambiguity is the only
> > way
> > we can achieve consensus, I am not optimistic we will succeed. This is a
> > difficult thing to do. It is worth doing right. Whatever the process we
> > use,
> > let's make sure the end result is something that everyone can get
behind.
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > .... deleted ....
> >
>
>