RE: Optical Connectors
Tad,
The way I read your suggestion, what would happen is this:
1. Reference clause 38.11.3 (don't need to cut and paste into a new clause).
2. Add your words: ""When high density is an important consideration then
Small Form Factor connector designs that meet the dimensions and interface
specifications of IEC 61754-18, IEC 61754-19 and IEC 61754-20 outlined in an
Informative Annex XX are recommended."
What this would mean: 802.3ae adopted four optical connectors.
Right?
jonathan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mailserv.mmm.com [mailto:tszostak1@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 2:23 PM
>To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG
>Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
>
>
>Jonathan,
>
>Please see below.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tad
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jonathan Thatcher <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 12:45 PM
>Subject: RE: Optical Connectors
>
>
>>
>> Given some of the notes on this thread, I am not confident
>that everyone
>has
>> the same idea of what it might mean for P802.3ae to specify
>an optical
>> connector.
>>
>> I think that we can simply look at clause 38.11.3 to see how
>we would do
>> this. In particular, note that the connector is specified by
>reference to
>an
>> international standard (IEC 61754-4) where the connector is
>specified in
>> detail.
>>
>
>Rather simple using cut and paste of 38.11.3 (duplex SC only)
>or by adding
>to the above following my recommendations supported by Paul,
>Rich, Schelto,
>Joel and few other: "When high density is an important
>consideration then
>Small Form Factor connector designs that meet the dimensions
>and interface
>specifications of IEC 61754-18, IEC 61754-19 and IEC 61754-20
>outlined in an
>Informative Annex XX are recommended." This would also be in
>line with ISO
>11801.
>
>> I believe it is our duty to select at least one connector
>for P802.3ae. I
>> personally have reservations about the committee selecting
>more than two
>> (e.g. SC and one SFF). If referencing FC implies indirect
>adoption of more
>> than two, this is a bad idea. We need to be clear what is being
>recommended.
>> By way of example, in clause 38.11.1 we reference IEC 793-2 fiber
>> specifications. We do not reference all fibers specified in
>IEC 793-2.
>
>I believe that you may have personal preferences regarding
>particular style
>and by way of the same example please take a note that IEC
>793-2 does cover
>50/125, 62.6/125 MMFs in 850 and 1310 nm windows with multiplication of
>bandwidth cells in four different categories (A1 - A4). The
>fifth, category
>B, covers SMF.
>
>As you can see the matrix is rather large.
>>
>> jonathan
>>
>