Re: what's next ?
Jamie:
The appropriate time to measure ourselves against the objectives is when we
go to working group ballot. It is premature to go down any of the paths
you propose.
I also disagree with your assessment of the meeting. We did not vote down
support for the LAN and MM fiber.
For a number of reasons, we were not able to reach the required 75%
consensus on the two 850 nm proposals and the 1300 WWDM proposal. Obviously
we need more time to work the issues.
Bruce
At 11:40 AM 7/14/00 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:
>Jamie,
>
>I strongly disagree with your assessment of the outcome of the La Jolla
>meeting.
>It is clear that the P802.3ae Task Force achieved virtually all of its
>objective
>except for the specific identification of one or more out of three
>possible PMDs
>to address multimode fiber optic cable objectives. All three of these PMDs
>received significantly over a majority of the Task Force vote but was short of
>the 75% required for passage.
>
>I also disagree that LAN oriented proposals were "all voted down". I do not
>understand how you can make this statement. All LAN and WAN objectives are
>covered under the logic portion of the track and 100% of the objectives
>for both
>LAN and WAN were voted in by the Task Force with virtually unanimous support.
>The PMDs apply equally to the LAN and WAN. Ethernet in the WAN clearly
>requires
>multimode fiber optic cable support. Do you disagree with this statement?
>
>I disagree that there is a need for a separate PAR and its associated division
>of effort at this time. I believe that the required compromise to bridge the
>small gap between the current majority support and required 75% support
>will be
>achieved in a reasonable period of time. In the interim, I am confident that
>logic and PMD supporters of the only three candidates to satisfy the two
>P802.3ae multimode cable plant objectives will not skip a beat in
>continuing to
>optimize those PMD solutions to market.
>
>To conclude, I'd like to correct the PMDs referenced in your note to those
>contending to meet P802.3ae multimode cable plant objectives and with
>significantly more that majority support in the P802.3ae task force:
>
>1. 850 nm Serial @ 10.3125 LAN/9.953 WAN line rate. PMD per kolesar_1_0700
>2. 850 nm WDM (4 channel) @ 3.125 LAN/2.488 WAN line rate/channel. PMD per
> wiedemann_1_0700
>3. 1310 nm WDM (4 channel) @ 3.125 LAN/2.488 WAN line rate/channel. PMD per
> hanson_1_0500
>
>Note that the 850 nm Serial PMD leverages the same exact logic as voted in for
>the accepted 1310 and 1550 nm Serial PMDs rather than reinventing the
>wheel with
>an unsupported and much more difficult to achieve 12.5 Gbps data rate as you
>suggest.
>
>To conclude, please note that specifications of two of three of the above PMDs
>are currently being developed by ANSI accredited standards committee NCITS T11
>in its T11.2 Optical Working Group. The remaining one will be proposed for
>specification at the early August meeting of this committee. It has been
>formally stated in the P802.3ae Task Force that these T11.2 specifications
>will
>be "portable" to P802.3ae as input to that process.
>
>A separate PAR is NOT needed. We won't skip a beat!
>
>Best Regards,
>Rich
>
>--
>"Kardontchik.Jaime" wrote:
> >
> > Hello 10Giga'ers,
> >
> > The results of the vote held in La Jolla led to the ridiculous result
> > that an
> > 802.3 Task Force has passed the MAN- and WAN-oriented proposals
> > and voted down all the LAN-oriented proposals. It is clear that the Task
> >
> > Force failed to reach its objectives. However, this failure could be
> > also a
> > great opportunity for everyone.
> >
> > Perhaps the right thing to do is to go for an amicable divorce and
> > propose
> > two new PARs and go for two separate Task Forces.
> >
> > One TF will have MAN- and WAN-oriented objectives using single-mode
> > fiber and 1,300 and 1,550 nm lasers. These are the two proposals that
> > were
> > approved in La Jolla. Being freed from the "burden" of the multiplicity
> > of
> > LAN-oriented proposals (as some of its proponents declared) this TF
> > could
> > proceed unimpeded to reach all its desired objectives.
> >
> > The other TF will be LAN-oriented and will also proceed very rapidly to
> > standardize the following 10.00000 Gbps proposals:
> >
> > 1) 8b/10b coding using 4-WDM and 850 nm lasers on multimode fiber,
> > with 3.125 Gbaud symbol rate in the fiber;
> > 2) 8b/10b coding using 4-WDM and 1,300 nm lasers on multimode and
> > single-mode fiber, with 3.125 Gbaud symbol rate in the fiber; and
> > 3) 8b/10b coding serially with 12.5 Gbaud symbol rate in the fiber.
> >
> > The 4-months delay due to the need to get an approved PAR will not
> > impact
> > the final target schedule of the original 802.3ae. On the contrary, one
> > would
> > expect - at least for the LAN-oriented Task Force - to have a first
> > written
> > draft and the first complete multivendor working prototypes by the end
> > of
> > this year (at least for the 4-WDM versions). This will make the approval
> > of
> > the LAN-PAR unstopable. And with working prototypes so early one would
> > expect the final LAN-oriented Standard to be very robust and overwhelmly
> >
> > adopted by the market.
> >
> > Moving the serial LAN to 12.5 Gbaud is a risky proposition from my
> > part. However, if the delay/price penalty is reasonable it would be
> > worthy
> > since then all the 10 Gbps LAN PHYs will have the same PCS, that will
> > also
> > be shared by Fiber Channel and the majority of the high-speed Copper
> > backplane solutions.
> >
> > These three LAN-oriented proposals will provide the most cost effective
> >
> > solutions for all the possible LAN environments, including both the
> > in-building
> > links and the longer campus links
> >
> > Jaime E. Kardontchik
> > Micro Linear
> > San Jose, CA 95131
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>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