Re: PMD discussion
Rich,
I was under the understanding that only one block coding PHY was being proposed, 64B66B. When 64B/66B was proposed, that 8B/10B as
an external coding scheme was dropped. I thought that 8B/10B was for XAUI, internal only, transparent only copper extension.
I was not aware that a separate coding scheme than the rest of P802.3ae was being proposed just for the WDM PMDs. If so, then the
WDM solution is now a separate complete PHY not a PMD. I do not believe that this is what has been voted on.
The presentation by Howard Frazier, that proposed the "WIS" based "UniPHY" has only 64B/66B out of the PCS. Please see
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/mar00/frazier_1_0300.pdf. If you are now deviating from that, with WDM being a
separate PHY, then what is the status of the "UniPHY"?
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Taborek" <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "HSSG" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: PMD discussion
>
> Roy,
>
> I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from, please explain.
>
> All initial LAN WDM PHY proposals as well as those currently in front of the
> Task Force employ 8B/10B encoding. This coding choice has been essentially
> stable for more than a year now. 64B/66B has never been formally proposed as a
> PCS for LAN WDM PHYs.
>
> 64B/66B has been proposed as the PCS for the LAN Serial PHY since approximately
> the November, 1999 meeting.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Roy Bynum wrote:
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > Now I am confused. It was my understanding that the LAN only PHY would be using 64b/66b, just like what is being forced on the
WAN
> > compatible PHY. If so, then it was my understanding that the parallel/CWDM PMD would also be 64b/66b.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rich Taborek" <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "HSSG" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:35 AM
> > Subject: Re: PMD discussion
> >
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > >
> > > Done! I completely agree to drop this tangent and focus on PMD issues.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > NetWorthTK@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rich:
> > > >
> > > > I believe you misunderstood my mail to conclude your comments too quickly.
> > > >
> > > > I never mentioned that I like the 12.5 Gbps 8B/10B coding to be replaced by
> > > > 10.3125 Gbps 64b/66b.
> > > >
> > > > We are discussing serial vs parallel issues.
> > > >
> > > > We are too much involved in resolving PMD issues right now, and I believe no
> > > > one is interested in bring the coding scheme back to reflector at this moment.
> > > >
> > > > Please do not intiate this one. let us focuse on PMD issues.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Ed Chang
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com