Schedule and expectations -- please read.
All,
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Jaime,
I believe Rich likes it better that way.
While I would love to move the WG Ballot to March 2000, we would be avoiding
all the fun of doing the difficult, detailed and tedious engineering work
that we all know, love, live, and work irrational hours for.
END :-) END :-) END :-) END :-) END :-) END :-) END :-) END :-)
Since I am a believer that many (no, not all) jokes carry a more serious
message (intended or not), I think that I should simply and briefly state my
ideas on how we will progress during the next 6 months.
I expect that we will close the "brainstorming" phase in March 2000. Until
that time (and especially at the Jan 2000 meeting), the door is wide open
for any idea that supports our objectives, PAR, and 5 criteria. As you are
all aware, I have already asked the different PMD camps to begin to codify
their proposals per the style of clause 38 (as appropriate). I expect that
in March we will switch this into high gear. I similarly expect that any
proposal that does not start moving strongly in this direction by March,
never will. This is entirely appropriate since the last new proposal,
according to our schedule, is July 2000.
It is my opinion that "last new proposal" means a proposal that is
sufficiently documented and understood so that it can be voted into (July
2000) and compiled into the first draft (available at Sept, 2000 meeting).
While this does not mean that all the details and language need to be worked
out, it does mean that all of the key features need to be defined. To what
degree? To the degree that 75% of the committee believe that they can
support it!
Remember, once a proposal is voted in, it will take 75% of the vote to
remove it! The most likely case for removal of a proposal is that it does
not meet the "technical feasibility requriement" prior to going to LMSC
ballot). Amongst other things, this means that the committee will most
likely NOT vote something in that they are deeply concerned about. The
bottom line? The "day of judgement" isn't as far off as some people think.
Enjoy the holidays,
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaime Kardontchik [mailto:kardontchik.jaime@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 1:44 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: 10 GbE en MASse PMD, Historically...
>
>
>
> Jonathan Thatcher:
>
> Did you move the WG Ballot to March 2000 ?
>
> By the way that people keep Rich busy it would seem that all the
> data and development regarding all the PHY proposals has been
> completed and the only thing left is give the final judgment and
> vote for the clear winner ...
>
> Jaime
>
> Jaime E. Kardontchik, Ph.D.
> Micro Linear
> San Jose, CA 95131
> email: kardontchik.jaime@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Rich Taborek wrote:
>
> > Geoff,
> >
> > I stand corrected. I knew this statement wasn't exactly
> correct, but I decided
> > to spare myself the research at 2:00 AM this morning and
> finish the note.
> > Thanks for your update.
> >
> > I also agree on your 1000BASE-T opinion. However, it is
> important to note that
> > there were multiple (5?) new modulation and signaling
> proposals aired early in
> > 1000BASE-T. I don't recall if any of them were all that
> firmly rooted in
> > existing standards or products. With due respect to all
> 802.3ab committee
> > members, this was a heck of an engineering effort, a
> leveraging of sound
> > technologies, and clearly an effort endorsed by many 802
> professionals.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Rich-
> > >
> > > 100BASE-TX was not a case of "engineered brand new technology"
> > >
> > > We stole it fair and square from FDDI (TP-PMD). Perhaps
> you were thinking
> > > of 100BASE-T4 or 100BASE-T2 both of which were new
> technology but didn't
> > > make it in the market.
> > >
> > > You could argue 10BASE-T either way. There was extensive
> proprietary
> > > product out there (LattisNet-UTP) and the group had
> already done work on 1
> > > Mb/s StarLAN (1BASE5) but the signaling was a new design,
> the last one that
> > > we have done that was a success. The jury is still out on
> 1000BASE-T.
> > >
> > > At 02:51 AM 11/19/99 -0800, Rich Taborek wrote:
> > > ........
> > > >> 1. Historically, Ethernet has utilized the optical
> > > >> technologies developed by at least several companies
> > > >> with some key fielded product.
> > > >
> > > >That may well be true for Ethernet, but only because all
> Ethernet optical
> > > >technologies to date have been leveraged from other
> standards. In other
> > > instances,
> > > >such as 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T, 802 has engineered brand new
> > > technologies to
> > > >field a standard. History and tradition are all well and
> fine, but
> > > certainly not
> > > >the rule for Ethernet. Note also that WWDM is a new
> technology, not
> > > fielded in
> > > >general, and certainly not by many companies.
> > >
> > > Happy Thanksgiving,
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > > |=========================================|
> > > | Geoffrey O. Thompson |
> > > | Chair IEEE 802.3 |
> > > | Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S SC5-02 |
> > > | 4401 Great America Parkway |
> > > | P. O. Box 58185 |
> > > | Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185 USA |
> > > | Phone: +1 408 495 1339 |
> > > | Fax: +1 408 988 5525 |
> > > | E-Mail: gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
> > > | Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at |
> > > http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/index.html
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Richard Taborek Sr. 1441 Walnut Dr. Campbell, CA 95008 USA
> > Tel: 408-370-9233 Cell: 408-832-3957 Fax: 408-374-3645
> > Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>