Re: Why not have both
Howard,
Thanks for condensing it. It looks much better without requiring bridging.
Henry Ngai
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Frazier <hfrazier@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Why not have both
>
>
>
> As others have pointed out, the model I presented is just that, a
> model. It is not intended to constrain implementations, but it is
> intended to define the scope of work for the 10 Gigabit Ethernet
> standards project.
>
> Implementers can, and probably will, build a variety of devices.
> That's the wonderful thing about implementers. They are creative, and
> they respond to the needs of their customers. As standards weenies, our
> job is to write a document that describes the essential requirements
> for interoperability, and let creativity, inovation, and the demands of
> the market define the product specs.
>
> If we can agree that we will
>
> Have two PHYs, one for the LAN, and
> one for the WAN
>
> and we can agree that
>
> Within the context of the 802 standards
> architecture, the two PHYs operate below
> identical individual 802.3 MACs
>
> and we can agree that
>
> The PHYs may require the definition
> of new management attributes
>
> Then we will have made a huge amount of progress, and we will be able to
> draft and gain approval of a PAR with the supporting 5 Criteria. The
> standard that we eventually produce will fit nicely into the family of
> 802 standards, and implementers will go out, work their magic, and deliver
> interoperable products that customers will just love.
>
> Howard Frazier
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>