RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
Jay,
I am not arguing that anyone has done a poor job at anything. That's a
severe misinterpretation of my point. All I'm saying is that we should
support the industry with the most cost effective solution. And from my
perspective, we should identify where the potential 10GE links exist. If
you can come up with such a survey/matrix, I'd love to see it. I believe
they may exist in the telecom industry, but for the most part are
proprietary to the company doing the survey.
Also, I never mentioned anything about multiplying PMDs. Again, all I said
was that the IEEE should choose the most cost effective solution(s). If,
from all the data we have, we find that your list of PMD's stands by
themselves, then so be it. However, there is a large group (including
myself) that would dispute that.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:59 AM
To: Chris Simoneaux
Cc: Edward Chang; Roy Bynum; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Subject: Survey of lengths of installed optical fiber cable
Chris,
One of the initial requirements in the creation of a standard is the
definition of objectives. I think we did a very good job of that in 10GBE.
As has been pointed out before, these discussions are a reprise of the ones
we had when we originally defined the objectives. Someone needing a generic
10GB link can find it in one of the PMD's meeting the objectives we've
defined. I think we now risk violating Occam's Razor; multiplying PMD's
beyond necessity.
Jay