Re: what's next ?
[Date: 07/18/2000 From Seto]
I think we have enough Optical War already at 802.3ae.
We neither have time and desire to have another in this task force.
I'd suggest we standardize on SC in this standard and legitimate additional
connectors in later standards if necessary.
Seto
>
> 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
> > >
> >
>