Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
> From: "Roy Bynum" <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jonathan Thatcher" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Paul Bottroff" <paul_bottorff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Martin" <dwmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "P802.3ae
Task Force Reflector" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Unified PMD vs. Unified PHY
> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:05:26 -0600
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
> X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Rich,
>
> ... (Personally, I also think that Fibre Channel
> is a very good technology. I just don't want to build a large extended,
> long distance, LAN infrastructure using it.)
>
...
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
Roy,
If we apply duality to your statement we get:
"Personally, I also think that SONET is a very good technology. I just
don't want to build a SMALL, SHORT distance, LAN infrastructure using
it."
It appears to me that this dual statement is as reasonable as yours, and
it might be what Rich (Taborek) was saying.
Why spend a sunny Sunday questioning the credentials or experience of
TF members that share his views?
Ariel Hendel
Sun Microsystems