Re: [STDS-802-3-25G] nomenclature presentation & discussion for January 2015 interim

[Scott Kipp <skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gary,

 

The single dash is better.  We don’t have a dash after the number now, so we don’t need one.  400GAUI-4 seems clear to me.

 

Thanks,

Scott

 

From: Gary Nicholl (gnicholl) [mailto:gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 8:25 AM
To: STDS-802-3-25G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-25G] nomenclature presentation & discussion for January 2015 interim

 

If we leave the first dash, will we then need a second dash to indicate the number of lanes in the AUI (for AUI’s where the # of lanes is >1) ? For  example at 200G the AUI might be based on 4 x 50G electrical lanes, so 200G-AUI-4, or 2x100G electrical lanes further out in time , so 200G-AUI-2 ? Are we get all ‘dashed out’ here ? Would  it be better as 200GAUI-4, 200GAUI-2, 400GAUI-16, 400GAUI-8, 400GAUI-4, etc ?

 

Gary 

 

From: <Ali>, Hassan <hali@xxxxxx>
Reply-To: "Ali, Hassan" <hali@xxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM
To: "STDS-802-3-25G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-25G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-25G] nomenclature presentation & discussion for January 2015 interim

 

I agree. But why need the “dash”? Why not 25GAUI, 50GAUI, etc.?

 

Best regards,

 

Hassan.

 

 

From: Dan Dove [mailto:dan.dove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:12 PM
To: STDS-802-3-25G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-25G] nomenclature presentation & discussion for January 2015 interim

 

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,

Dan Dove
Chief Consultant
Dove Networking Solutions
530-906-3683 - Mobile

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