Re: Optical Connectors
Not exactly. I do suggest to specify the duplex SC as it was the case for
802z (the cut and paste).
Pointer towards INFORMATIVE Annex would allow both manufacturers and
customers to use any of the
specified SFFs when the size, high density, being either pigtailed device,
module, cable plant,
cross-connects etc., is of primary consideration. This will:
1. Provide intermeatability and compliance with law in some countries, as
pointed by Jay, in the MAN/WAN environment where practically every major
national or international telecom carrier, presumably major user of 10 GbE,
standardized on and implemented millions of SCs
2. Satisfy compliance requirement with ISO 11801 Premises Cabling Standard
(HSSG Objectives Part 2) as well as EN 50173 and ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B3
(European and US Cabling Standards). Keep in mind that many customers in the
both telco and premises environment wants to keep same interface throughout
the entire plant so the decision making process takes into considerations
cost and
in-field installation.
3. Allow the SFF technologies to mature and customers the freedom of
implementation.
4. Save time, resources and avoid multiple connector wars within each
standards body.
On the flip side I may go along with even better solution as suggested by
many. Follow the ITU-T and do not specify anything.
Cheers.
Tad
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Thatcher <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'mailserv.mmm.com' <tszostak1@xxxxxxx>; HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: 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
> >>
> >
>