RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
Pat:
Yes precisely.
Bruce
At 05:15 PM 1/29/01 -0700, pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>If someone wants a change as a result of this, it should be done in terms of
>one or more specific changes and not a general statement which they expect
>editor's to develop into a draft change.
>
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:11 PM
>To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
>Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
>
>
>
>Brad and Roy:
>
>I asked this question before and no one responded. Is someone going to
>turn this email thread into a comment on the next draft?
>
>
>Bruce
>
>At 12:13 PM 1/28/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
>
> >Roy,
> >
> >Yes, by that reasoning, you could state that RF/LF is outside the scope of
> >the standard. It is a matter of interpretation to each individual in the
> >room as to what is inside and outside the scope of the standard based upon
> >the objectives. Everyone in the room could have a differing view of what
> >the WAN PHY is and what the required management is. I believe that our
> >standard can only be stronger if we, as participants, are willing to
> >question everything about it. If we can't justify it being in the
>standard,
> >then it probably doesn't belong.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Brad
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 4:03 PM
> >To: Booth, Bradley; HSSG
> >Subject: RE: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> >
> >
> >Brad,
> >
> >Just because the objective was vague doe not mean it was without
> >meaning. By your reasoning, I could just as easily state that RL/LF
> >functionality is out of scope, as it was not included in the
> >objectives. Just as the objective for a LAN PHY carried with it the
> >inferred lack of need for management overhead, the objective for the WAN
> >PHY carried with it the inferred need for management overhead. Please
> >refer back to the all of the traffic on the reflector and to the
> >presentations concerning the management overhead requirements for a WAN
>PHY.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
> >
> >
> >At 09:53 PM 1/26/01 -0800, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >
> > >To quote the objectives:
> > >"Define two families of PHYs
> > >- A LAN PHY, operating at a data rate of 10.000 Gb/s
> > >- A WAN PHY, operating at a data rate compatible with the payload rate of
> > >OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c"
> > >
> > >That's all the objective says. By that objective, we could create a "WAN
> > >PHY" that that is just the 10GBASE-R PHY pushing data onto the fiber at
> > >9.58464 Gb/s, without any SONET overhead. The objective was meant to be
> > >vague so that the task force had some flexibility.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Brad
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 5:59 AM
> > >To: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> > >Subject: Re: Clock Tolerance and WAN PHY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rich,
> > >
> > >You have a very good a presenting that would seem reasonable to those who
> > >don't have any experience in attempting to implement what you are
> > >proposing. The objectives of P802ae include a WAN PHY. What constitutes
>a
> > >WAN PHY has been explained to the group by those of us that have worked
>in
> > >a WAN optical environment. You keep miss representing the requirements
>of
> > >a WAN PHY by presenting a LAN implementation as a WAN. It works very
>well
> > >at confusing those that are attempting to gain an understanding of what
>the
> > >issues are.
> > >
> > >Those of us that have worked in the WAN optical environment are not
> > >confused by your comments. Those of us that have worked in the WAN
>optical
> > >environment would like to have the opportunity to educate those that
>would
> > >actually like to gain a understanding of what the real world requirements
> > >are.
> > >
> > >Thank you,
> > >Roy Bynum