Mike,
Your history isn’t correct. It should be:
“We changed the initial CAUI to CAUI-10 when we introduced CAUI-4”
Regards,
Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |
From: Mike Dudek [mailto:mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 07 January 2015 23:57
To: STDS-802-3-25G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-25G] nomenclature presentation & discussion for January 2015 interim
I think it helps people so it doesn’t get pronounced 25-GAUI.
Answering a different question, raised by Paul. I would expect we might in the future have 200G-AUI8 (25G lanes) to differentiate from 200G-AUI4 (50G lanes), or 200G-AUI2 (100G lanes). History - We changed the initial CAUI to CAUI10 when we introduced CAUI4. I think it may be useful to include the lane quantity from day one, for anything other than one lane, but that will be a discussion for a different project as I for one would strongly oppose creating a multi-lane 25G-AUI such as 25G-AUI4.
Mike Dudek
QLogic Corporation
Director Signal Integrity
26650 Aliso Viejo Parkway
Aliso Viejo CA 92656
949 389 6269 - office.
Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx
I agree. But why need the “dash”? Why not 25GAUI, 50GAUI, etc.?
Best regards,
Hassan.
Hi Kent,
I know I started this discussion on the question of "how to pronounce XXVAUI" and it was a sincere gesture, but given that I am not really adamant about the use of Roman Numerals (Despite US heritage from Great Britain, a former Roman outpost) and the discussion about future designations (CCAUI, LAUI, CDAUI, CCMAUI, etc) I am easily persuaded to break precedent and move to a more clear designation that is scalable like 25G-AUI, 50G-AUI, 200G-AUI, 800G-AUI, etc.
So list me as a supporter.
Regards,
On 1/7/15 1:14 PM, Lusted, Kent C wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
For next week's 802.3by Task Force meeting, I prepared a presentation called "nomenclature consensus building". Variants of this presentation have been presented in the architecture ad hoc meeting (http://www.ieee802.org/3/25GSG/public/adhoc/architecture/lusted_100114a_25GE_adhoc.pdf) as well as the Study Group meeting in San Antonio (http://www.ieee802.org/3/25GSG/public/Nov14/lusted_25GE_01a_1114.pdf).
Parts of the nomenclature related to this project have consensus. This is good news.
However, the verbal and written feedback that I received so far regarding the speed designation part in the MII and AUI terms shows much contention. This is bad news. :( One dominant view is to remain with the Roman numeral element, i.e. XXVAUI and XXVGMII. The opposing view is to depart with the Roman numerals for something else, i.e. 25G-AUI and 25G-MII. Both of these views were strongly represented. :) And, there is also some that view an alternate designation such as YGMII, etc.
Perhaps the middle ground is to use the Roman numeral term (i.e. XXVGMII and XXVAUI) in the written specification but verbally refer to it as 25G-MII and 25G-AUI. I am open to consider all reasonable requests.
I know that this is will be a passionate discussion in the Task Force meeting and wish to provide an outlet via the reflector for participants to communicate their perspective prior to the meeting.
Lastly, I intend to hold a straw poll and accompanying motion in the Task Force meeting to settle on the nomenclature.
With regards,
-Kent Lusted