Re: [STDS-802-3-400G] "200G" vs "CC"

["Vineet Salunke (vineets)" <vineets@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark,

 

Not sure if this is obvious to everyone, but what is important here is that 400G and 200G should both go in the same way, and not go opposite ways.

So,

CDAUI + CCAUI

or

400GAUI + 200GAUI

 

--vineet

 

From: Mark Nowell (mnowell)
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:56 PM
To: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-3-400G] "200G" vs "CC"

 

The 802.3bs Task Force will be handling it’s motions this week on Friday.  Unfortunately many may miss this due to travel constraints – myself included.

 

I therefore thought I’d use the reflector to share my thoughts around nomenclature as the group looks to adopt their 200GbE SMF baselines.   This topic keeps coming up as many appear to be frustrated with the continuing use of Roman numerals nomenclature for the AUI and MII interfaces.

 

While the simplistic use of Roman numerals for 10GbE (XAUI) and 100GbE (CAUI) were somewhat easy to understand and say, we saw that with 25GbE it was unwieldy and when looking ahead at 200 GbE and beyond (800, 1000, 1600 … it wouldn’t get any better).  Therefore 802.3by switched back to the arabic nomenclature for the 25 GbE standard.

 

The joint meeting of the  50G/NGOATH and the 200GbE SMF Study groups in Macau considered the topic and a straw poll there was overwhelmingly in favor of using Arabic nomenclature.  Obviously this is non-binding, so this week the 802.3cd group followed through with adopting its nomenclature that included the arabic usage for the AUI and MII interfaces (and of course for the PMDs etc).  A lot of the discussion during the TF meeting centered around the challenges with talking to customers, press etc to explain things to those not fully steeped into the depths of 802.3 specification writing.  The motion result was Y:65 N:9 A:13.

 

I’m hoping that the 802.3bs Task force will also follow through in a similar manner when they make their decisions on adopting 200 GbE baselines and be sure to consider the clear direction from the SG that generated the work.  

 

Since I won’t be there tomorrow for the discussion,  I wanted to share my thoughts and allow others to respond in case they may also be missing the discussion on Friday.

 

Regards…Mark