Re: what's next ?
Seto,
I strongly agree. Sorry, I left this detail out of my last note on this thread.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
"Seto, Koichiro" wrote:
>
> [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
> > > >
> > >
> >
-------------------------------------------------------
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