Re: Why not have both
Paul,
The PAR is a brief document that contains little in the way of
technical detail. Mostly it's a bunch of boxes to check off. I doubt
that we need to say anything about a pacing mechanism in the PAR. Same
goes for the 5 Criteria. They don't dive down into technical details.
The subject of pacing can be addressed in the objectives, and
both you and I have proposed words for such an objective.
I said:
4) Agree that a pacing mechanism of some sort can be employed
if necessary to throttle the MAC's transmit data rate down to a
rate which is compatible with the payload rate of a WAN PHY.
You said:
4) Agree that a pacing mechanism be employed to throttle the MAC's
transmit data rate down to a rate which is compatible with the
payload of OC-192c/SDH-64.
Not a whole lot of difference, right? My wording is less specific,
because I think that the objectives should give us some wiggle room.
However, I am confident that we can get consensus on some combination
of words that will satisfy the Study Group. Needs a little tuning,
that's all.
Folks, I think we are getting somewhere. Is anyone truly grossed out
by the idea of having two PHYs? Are we really down to word-smithing
at this point?
Howard Frazier
Cisco Systems, Inc.