Re: RESPONSE TO Re: SUPI<>XAUI
Jonathan,
Thanks for asking this question and phrasing it the way you did.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>
> All (please),
>
> Regarding Rich Taborek's comment: "As I said in a previous note on this
> issue, I'm not interested in pursuing this matter further since I see no
> business case for the 10GBASE-LW4 PHY."
>
> I consider this to be a very significant challenge and would like to hear
> any counter-assertions.
>
> I believe that it is in the spirit of the 5 criteria to question SIGNIFICANT
> elements of the draft (the work of the task force). Specificially, I would
> like to know if there is "Broad Market Potential" for the 10GBASE-LW4 port
> type.
>
> Another "back door" way of asking this question is: does anyone intend to
> demonstrate this solution? Please remember that our 5 criteria has the
> following requirement listed for technical feasibility: "10 Gb/s Ethernet
> technology will be demonstrated during the course of the project, prior to
> the completion of the sponsor ballot."
>
> Yes, I recognize that 10GBASE-LW4, from a purely, technical feasibility
> perspective, can probably be answered based on existence proofs for OC-48,
> 10GBASE-LX4, and related technologies. But, that is not the point here.
>
> This question should probably be posed for each port type, and ultimately
> will. But, for now, I would like to focus on 10GBASE-LW4. Is there broad
> market support for 10GBASE-LW4? This is not the same as asking if
> 10GBASE-LW4 is a good idea. No chad, please. :-)
>
> jonathan
>
> p.s. Regarding the rest of this thread, for now, I am holding my tounge.
-------------------------------------------------------
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