Re: [802.3EEESG] [Probable Spam] Re: [802.3EEESG] Modified Objectives
You're not going to get off with a mid-sentence cutoff due to writing
emails while driving :). Now that I'm no longer moving, what I was
going to say is that the data backing up eee for market potential,
economic feasibility, and much of the technical feasibility is based on
power savings from beyond the PHY, and particularly for 1000BASE-T to
100BASE-T rate switching. The PHY savings going from 1000BASE-T to
100BASE-T isn't much, and it seems unlikely you could make a strong
market potential and economic or even technical feasibility argument for
a meaningful power savings with having new flavors without the ability
to propagate power savings beyond the PHY. The objectives NEED to say
something about link speed or other parameters - the standard will fail
to meet the five criteria if improvements are limited only to the PHYs
mentioned.
That is (IMO) a main reason the objective formulation (listing PHY
types) that was passed yesterday FAILED 2 meetings ago with a different
mix of voters.
-george
-----Original Message-----
From: George Zimmerman [mailto:gzimmerman@SOLARFLARE.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:34 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EEE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [Probable Spam] Re: [802.3EEESG] Modified Objectives
Ok, thanks for the correction. My concern still stands. While the
objectives as written don't preclude a link speed change, they can be
satisfied with only tweaks to the pjy signalling. Now, this may not be
what anyones proposing now, but don't you think the objectives should
say something about changing the link speed (or other parameter?) if
that is where the lion's share of the power savings is expected to come
from?
All of the data backing up eee for the