RE: what's next ?
I would suggest to have at least one common interface and leave the rest to
the market. It might be challenging, however not having a single common
interface is not a good idea IMHO.
Sharam Hakimi
Lucent Technologies
> ----------
> From: Edward Chang[SMTP:edward.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 11:13 AM
> To: Tatum, Jim; Jonathan Thatcher; 'DOVE,DANIEL J HP-Roseville,ex1;
> stds-802-3-hssg
> Subject: RE: what's next ?
>
>
> Comments:
>
> I agree that we should standardize the technologies for interoperability,
> but not to get into the product interoperability issues. There are so
> many
> different form factors, and connectors, which even the GbE and Fibre
> Channel
> market can not get consensus. They leave it to the users, and market to
> determine their options. We may be dragged into a unnecessary delay, if
> we
> try to determine those fro 10GbE.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Edward S. Chang
> NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
> EChang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Tel: (610)292-2870
> Fax: (610)292-2872
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tatum, Jim
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 8:51 AM
> To: Jonathan Thatcher; 'DOVE,DANIEL J HP-Roseville,ex1; stds-802-3-hssg
> Subject: RE: what's next ?
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
> I would assume that 802.3ae would do the same as 802.3z, and NOT specify
> conectors. The models that we work from are sufficient to determine the
> optical tables, since most of that work was done in 802.3z, and I would
> not anticipate new optical test procedures, though there might be some
> associated with launch condition. That work is nearing completion. As far
> as the jitter goes, that one may require some additional work, but I
> think
> it any MMF solution (I assume that this is a must have for 802.3ae... as
> dictated by the PAR) would require some amount of work.
>
> -Jim
>
> __________________________Honeywell
>
> Jim Tatum
> (972) 470-4572
> http://www.honeywell.com/sensing/vcsel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Thatcher
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:13 PM
> To: 'DOVE,DANIEL J HP-Roseville,ex1; stds-802-3-hssg
> Subject: RE: what's next ?
>
>
> Dan,
>
> If we are successful in adding the necessary PMD(s) to the baseline
> proposal
> during the September Interim Meeting, I see no reason why this detour
> should
> cause any modification in the overall schedule.
>
> Structurally, adding a Serial PMD will end up as a "column addition" to
> the
> Serial PMD clause (yes, I know, like with clause 38, we might actually
> have
> new tables). This level of change should be pretty transparent.
> Especially
> since we already know the specifications for the tables. Right?
>
> For non-serial, PMD proposals, it would certainly help if any September
> presentation came equipped with a "Draft 1.0 equivalent."
>
> I am more concerned with a few details that we haven't gotten to yet:
> 1. What is the connector on the media going to be? SC/LC/MT/Other?
> 2. What new optical test methods are required?
> 3. Can we lock down the jitter specifications and measurement (XAUI,
> SUPI,
> TP2/TP3)?
> etc.
>
> jonathan
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:dan_dove@xxxxxx]
> >Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 3:21 PM
> >To: 'Jonathan Thatcher'; stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: what's next ?
> >
> >
> >Hi Jonathan,
> >
> >I would appreciate it if you would clarify something for me.
> >
> >Since only the 1550 and 1300nm serial PMDs made it forward
> >at this last meeting, does that imply that a multimode or
> >WDM PMD will by necessity be forced to assume a later schedule?
> >
> >Can we expect to have a low-cost/short-haul PMD solution on
> >the original time frame?
> >
> >If so, I may have mis-interpreted the situation in La Jolla and
> >will be glad that my comments did not result in a negative vote
> >for moving the two PMDs forward.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dan Dove
> >HP ProCurve Networks
> >
>