Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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

Steve, Val, Vineet,

AUI stands for Attachment Unit Interface as defined in Clause 1 and has been in usage since the early 10 Mb/s days.  I don’t think we want to go changing that.

My comments below were only referring to 200 GbE nomenclature as that is the only area that could be considered by the .3bs Task Force this week.  Any concerns about consistency between 200 GbE and 400 GbE would have to be dealt with in comment resolution in an upcoming review or ballot cycle.

Hopefully, someone actually in the room today who is supportive of the “200G” nomenclature will remember to make the motion or amendment at the appropriate time.

Safe travels home everyone!

Mark 

On 5/27/16, 7:25 AM, "Valerie Maguire" <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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