Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I think this brings up four different issues.
Beth had an interesting analysis about the study group timing for the 100G per lane group that I think would apply to this group as well. It shows that the study group either has to wrap up its work in March (with the first task force
meeting in May) or wait until July (with a first task force meeting in Nov). My suggestion is that we target July and try to make the hard decisions in Study Group (i.e. have the more specific objectives).
From: Lingle, Robert L (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Dear Colleagues, Happy New Year! Please consider several options for the form of objectives that will be produced by the Study Group for “Next-Gen 200 & 400 Gb/s PHYs over fewer MMF pairs than Existing Ethernet Projects & Standards.” These differences arise from 1) different
forms of objectives in recent projects plus 2) whether we should choose the number of fiber pairs for a speed in Study Group vs. Task Force. (I only included single-pair and even numbers of fiber pairs, since those are the practical choices.) Historically
we have not specified that a specific grade of MMF was required to meet the objective. I show a 400 Gb/s example below, but the options would apply to a 200Gb/s objective as well. Q. What are the pro’s and con’s of these options? Which do you prefer?
Let us have a healthy discussion in advance of the 1/11 telecon, so we can begin to write down draft objectives. Warm regards, Robert Robert Lingle, Jr., Ph.D. Director, OFS Systems & Technology Strategy
2000 Northeast Expy | Norcross, GA 30071 |