Hi John,
Sorry for the delay in my response to you on the reflector.
Thank you for pointing this out to anyone who
might have misunderstood.
I hope that these efforts to build
consensus, through the various channels
of communication available to us, lead to a
very successful project.
Best Regards,
Dan Dove
Chief Consultant
Dove Networking Solutions
530-906-3683 - Mobile
On 2/14/14 12:52 PM, John_DAmbrosia@xxxxxxxx wrote:
All,
I
need to make clear that this is not officially appointed
IEEE ad-hoc.
While
I encourage such off-line consensus building, the use of the
reflector should be limited to individuals requesting other
interested individuals to contacting them for offline
consensus building.
Thanks
for attention to this matter in the future.
Regards,
John
Hi Brad,
Thank you for the feedback and also your offer to
assist with a conference #.
I've spoken to a number of people offline and via
email, and so far there seems to be a strong consensus
that this discussion should be had. There will be other
forums I am sure, but this should offer a good starting
point. I welcome anyone who wishes to join the
discussion and plan to have a brief presentation to act
as a basis for discussion.
For those who wish to attend, here is the conference
call information.
Wednesday, 19 Feb, 2014 @ 9am PST.
--> Join Lync Meeting<https://join.microsoft.com/meet/brbooth/3PUHL7RN
> Join by phone
Direct: +14257063500<tel:+14257063500> (USA
- Redmond Campus) English (United States)
Toll Free: +18883203585<tel:+18883203585> (USA
- Redmond Campus) English (United States)
Conference ID: 35844896
Find a local number<https://join.microsoft.com/dialin>
Forgot your dial-in PIN?<https://join.microsoft.com/dialin>
|Help<http://o15.officeredir.microsoft.com/r/rlidLync15?clid=1033&p1=5&p2=2009>
Dan Dove
Chief Consultant
Dove Networking Solutions for Huawei
530-906-3683 - Mobile
On 2/12/14 11:17 AM, Brad Booth wrote:
You ask some excellent questions.
As many can probably attest to,
innovation within a standards development project can be
a daunting task. It can be significantly easier (and
faster) to develop a standard around technologies the
task force are familiar and comfortable discussing.
That being said, there are times
where IEEE 802.3 has been innovative in what they
specify. While some of those innovations may not have
gone on to see success in the market, they have often
laid the foundation for our next generation of
specifications.
This is a good time to discuss these
topics as they certainly have a direct bearing on the
time it can take to complete a project and on the level
of commitment required by the task force members. Please
feel free to add me to the list.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Dan
Dove <dan.dove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
All,
One of the biggest challenges we face in developing
Ethernet standards is identifying the appropriate
balance point for technological innovation.
For 400G, we have a number of technology elements,
from PCS to CDAUI to a number of PMDs. Each element
can be satisfied with a straight-forward extension of
100G technology, or some level of innovation may be
taken on to achieve a longer-term solution that will
achieve lower cost/power/space points, but that
innovation has a cost in time and energy required to
achieve it.
The question of where the balance point is for each
element in the architecture is exacerbated by the fact
that market need varies from "I need it now and cost
is not the issue!" to "I don't need it now, but when I
do, cost, power, density will be essential!".
And then we have the complexity of IEEE project
realities to add to the fun. A project has a defined
time-frame for getting the specification done. Having
some elements being straight-forward, while others
being highly-innovative, can create a challenge to the
industry. Do we wait for the straight-forward parts
until the highly-innovative parts are figured out, or
do we jettison the more complex efforts to another
project to be done at a later time? Or do we leave the
straight-forward parts to MSAs or other mechanisms and
focus only on the level of innovation that is
justified by a standard?
As we prepare to move into the March plenary, and the
natural gap in activity that goes along with a TF
approval process, I am thinking that we can use this
time wisely to address these questions and try to get
consensus around what level of innovation for each
part of this project is appropriate.
I'm just thinking out-loud a bit here and even
considering hosting a bridge call to discuss this as
well. If you are interested in being on the
distribution list for that call, please let me know.
Regards,
--
Dan Dove
Chief Consultant
Dove Networking Solutions for Huawei
530-906-DOVE - Mobile
|