| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
All, I have spent a lot of time on the phone this week talking to people regarding the upcoming CFI. I am finding that language, as always, is actually hindering communication. First – let me be clear – my proposed CFI has been
This would charter the group to look at a lot of things. One of the things that has been discussed is 200 Gb/s signaling, which by my interpretation would be totally in scope of developing a higher speed such as 800 GbE or 1.6TbE. Now to the language problems Some have been saying 200G or 800G This has been interpreted by some as meaning 200 Gb/s or 200 GbE or 800 G of capacity or 800 GbE. We need to be very clear – so there are no mis-communications. By the proposed CFI noted above – developing 200 Gb/s signaling to address 800 GbE or 1.6 TbE – in scope. Applying that to 200 GbE – not in scope. It would need to be addressed through another effort or possible modification to SG scope (if approve as noted) or PAR if appropriate. 800 Gb/s capacity may not be the same as 800 GbE. One could develop 800 Gb/s of capacity based on 200/400 GbE enabled by 200 Gb/s signaling – this is not the same as 800 GbE enabled by 200 Gb/s signaling. Once again a potential scope issue. SO I am requesting that everyone be very careful in choosing their language and be specific. When discussing Ethernet rates, please apply the “GbE” after the number and not just “G” as this might be interpreted then as Gb/s. I have found myself during several conversations having to address this issue. So I am asking everyone to keep this in mind during any written or verbal discussions. Thanks John To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGECDC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGECDC&A=1 |