Re: [STDS-802-3-400G] "200G" vs "CC"
Since the "AUI" designation is
confusing for newbies, I second Steve's proposal.
Safe travels this weekend - Val
Valerie Maguire, BSEE
Global Sales Engineer
602-228-7943 mobile
www.siemon.com
From:
"Swanson, Steven
E" <SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:
05/26/2016 09:26 PM
Subject:
Re: [STDS-802-3-400G]
"200G" vs "CC"
We could get rid of the whole acronym (AUI) and just
call it a 10G interface.
Sent from my personal assistant
> On May 26, 2016, at 9:13 PM, Lingle, Robert L (Robert) <rlingle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Ali,
>
> XAUI and CAUI were good in their time!
>
> But perhaps there is an analogy between Roman numeral AUI and legacy
data center architectures.
>
> They were good in their time, but they don't scale nicely into the
future, so they have to be replaced eventually.
>
> Warm regards,
> robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Swanson, Steven E [mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 12:10 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-400G] "200G" vs "CC"
>
> Ali
>
> Sorry; I would not.
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my personal assistant
>
> On May 26, 2016, at 9:03 PM, Ali Ghiasi <aghiasi@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Roman numerals might take sometimes getting used to so let me ask
the following questions:
> - Prefer 10GAUI vs XAUI
> - Prefer 100GAUI vs CAUI
> I expect you would prefer Roman numeral over Arabic!
>
> Thanks,
> Ali
>
> On Thursday, May 26, 2016, Swanson, Steven E <SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
> Please add my absentee vote for Arabic. I am the poster child for
being Roman numeral impaired and I know I am not the only one.
>
> Safe travels all,
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my personal assistant
>
> On May 26, 2016, at 8:05 PM, Richard Mellitz <richard.mellitz@xxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;><mailto:richard.mellitz@xxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;>>>
wrote:
>
> Same boat (different plane), same sentiments!
> Rich Mellitz
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 26, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Scott Kipp <skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;><mailto:skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;>>>
wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> I am in the same boat (really a plane) as you. I will be leaving
in the morning and will miss this important vote.
>
> As someone who regularly speaks to press and analysts on behalf of
the Ethernet Alliance - as well as others throughout the industry, I don't
have to explain the data rate of 200GAUI is. If I show them CCAUI,
I have to explain that CC is 100 + 100. Remember the Romans?
>
> I find the Roman numerals quaint but problematic. Some traditions
aren't worth carrying forward and will only get more complex.
>
> Please think of others outside of IEEE and vote for 200GAUI and 200GMII.
>
> Kind regards,
> Scott
>
> From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) [mailto:mnowell@xxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:00 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;><mailto:STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<_javascript_:;>>
> 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
This message has been checked by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
If you think it is actually spam, please click this link and mark it as
such:
http://mail.siemon.com/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=EA604401C5.AA66E