| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Sorry – missed one thing. On the adhoc call today I sent out an earlier version of the poll.
I’m happy to get answers on both, but the one listed in this email thread adds the ”no-opinion” answer, and more importantly adds the summary text to explain the options.
Any comments from the older poll will not be lost, and I will report the results for that as well. Regards Peter _______________________________________________
Peter Jones Cisco Systems
Principal Engineer 3600 Cisco Way
Campus Switching S/W San Jose, CA, 95134 USA
Tel: +1 408 525 6952 Fax: +1 408 527 4698
Email: petejone at cisco.com
Twitter: @petergjones _______________________________________________
From: Peter Jones (petejone)
Hi Folks, As discussed in the AdHoc teleconference today, your esteemed chair and I would like to keep making progress in firming up objectives. To get this project moving fast, we really need
to get our objectives nailed in the Interim in January, and that’s not very far away. We want to get a sense of where the group is in relation to what is (almost certainly) our most controversial potential objective “What objective text should we use to address support
for 5Gb/s on four-pair Class D (Cat5e)?" (see slide 4 in the deck at this
link) We will use “Survey Monkey” for this (thanks to Mark Nowell for this idea), and I’ve set up a poll as “Chicago Rules” (vote for all options that make sense to you). The poll is at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X99DC8N I would like to encourage everyone to read the material at the adhoc web page (link) and also
the CFI deck (link), and then give us your best response based on where you are right now. The straw poll (link) asks the following (and thanks to George Zimmerman for providing some nice explanatory text).
1. This is a straw poll to get the sense of the group on the question "What objective text should we use to address support for 5Gb/s on four-pair Class D (Cat5e)? ".
·
“No Opinion" , This feels like an abstain, or maybe "not enough information to form an opinion yet".
·
"None, should not be an objective or no objective needed” : This means we retain the proposed objective for support of 5G over Cat 6/Class E (with the appropriate
augmentation), but don’t add anything mentioning Cat5e/Class D. If a Class D link segment meets the requirements, it would still be supported, but Cat5e/Class D would not be explicitly mentioned in the objectives for the 5Gbps rate.
·
“Up to at least 100m on Cat 6 and Up to 100m on Cat 5e”: This means that we retain the proposed Cat 6/Class E objective, with specifications that support 100m
E (with the appropriate augmentation), and add to it, an explicit reference for Cat5e/Class D support, but with a less aggressive posture – “Up to 100m” means the group may not reach the full 100m, and it is on a best-effort basis, but some distance would
be supported.
·
“Up to at least 100m on Cat 5e”: In this case we would delete the proposed objective for support of 5G over Cat 6/Class E, relying on the backwards compatibility
of cabling (Cat 6 links meet or exceed all Cat5e requirements). Links from minimum length to 4 connector channels of 100m over Cat5e would be supported at the 5Gbps rate (with appropriate augmentation) at least in those configurations covered by the ‘augmentation’. I plan to leave this survey open until the end of Sunday 12/22/14 (AOE). I will then tally the results and report back to the group.
Regards Peter Peter Jones NGEABT Study Group Architecture Ad Hoc Chair
|