RE: Clause 48 comments
What is the expected schedule for revision 1.01 of the 802.3ae draft?
Thx.,
Boaz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:09 PM
> Cc: 802.3ae
> Subject: Re: Clause 48 comments
>
>
>
> Ben,
>
> I realize that a response to this note is long overdue, but
> I'm finally
> getting back to it. Here are my responses to your clause 48 comments.
>
> Ben Brown wrote:
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > Just a few comments regarding clause 48. Sorry if these were
> > already brought up last week.
> >
> > 48.1.4 - page 128
> > I thought clause 47 was for XAUI and this clause was for
> > LAN WWDM. I'm confused by the statement on line 48 talking
> > about this being a chip-to-chip interface.
>
> You are correct in which clause does what. However, the LAN
> WWDM PCS and
> PMA constitute a chip-to-chip interconnect as does XAUI. It's
> up to the
> LAN WWDM PMD to turn the electrons into photons.
>
> > 48.1.6 - page 129, line 11
> > Change "map onto to the" to "map onto the"
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.2 - page 131, line 54
> > Change "PCS Receive process" to "PCS Deskew process"
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.4.3 - page 135, figure 48-5
> > Under Code_Sel decodings, 0 should be used to indicate /K/
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.4.3.2 - page 135, line 46
> > Change "initiator" to "transmitter"
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.4.3.3 - page 21, line 21
> > Change "many" to "may"
>
> Done.
>
> > General
> > Change "single-code groups" to "single-code code-groups"
>
> Done. 2 occurrences.
>
> > 48.2.5.1.3
> > - rx_even=TRUE for both cgbad and cggood makes me think
> > this hasn't been updated yet from clause 36
>
> Correct. Revised in rev 1.01.
>
> > - rx_code-group - line 22 - Change "all three lanes" to
> > "all four lanes"
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.5.2.1
> > Page 141, figure 48-6 - If /T/ is lost, the next packet
> > is also lost. Should there be some detection of /I/ that
> > returns the machine to XGMII_IPG?
>
> Yes. The State Diagrams are being revised to reflect earlier /I/
> detection.
>
> > Page 142, figure 48-7 - Should this state machine describe
> > how to pad octets after /T/ with /K/?
>
> I'd rather do this with a function rather than a state diagram.
>
> > Page 143, line 3 - Reference to Figure 48-5 should be Figure
> > 48-8
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.5.2.2 - page 143, line 25
> > Reference to Figure 48-8 should be Figure 48-9
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.2.5.2.3 - page 143, lines 45-49
> > This, also, looks like Clause 36 stuff.
>
> Correct. Revised in rev 1.01.
>
> > 48.3.2 - page 149, line 32
> > The note references clauses 38 & 39. This should be
> > clause 54 (I think).
>
> Done.
>
> > 48.3.2.3 - page 150
> > I would have expected some discussion of comma alignment
> > in this section. Is this done somewhere else?
>
> Correct. Revised in rev 1.01.
>
> > 48.3.4 - page 150, lines 42
> > Do you expect this reference to Annex 36A for test patterns
> > to change or will Annex 36A change to reflect that these
> > test patterns also support 10GBASE-X (and XAUI?)?
>
> I expect the reference to change. Editor's note inserted.
>
> > Ben
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Benjamin Brown
> > AMCC
> > 603-798-4115 - Home
> > bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>