| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
John- I stand by my statement. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this in the forum of 802.3 If you don't like my assertion that the proposal lacks distinct identity, the I will be ahppy to take up another tack. How about if I assert that the current 802.3ba project is not appropriately fulfilling its "Broad Market Potential" because it doesn't include a PHY for a 40Gb/s Ethernet Single-mode Fibre PMD? Best regards, Geoff On 10/30/09 5:03 AM, John DAmbrosia wrote: David - thanks for setting this up. Geoff, I am not seeing where this request for CFI is inappropriate. In your comments you point to the CFI failing the Distinct Criterion. How is that possible? As far as I know there is no such rule for a CFI. Clearly, if a study group is formed, that study group will then be responsible for defining a project that would meet the distinct identity criterion. As far as fixing "perceived deficiencies" with the P802.3ba, I do not believe there are any. A single objective to cover 40G over 10km was adopted. Decisions were made by the Task Force that resulted in a decision to go with the current 40GBASE-LR4 solution, but the Task Force also took the following straw poll at the time the decision was made to go with the 40GBASE-LR4 proposal (at which time 97 people had voted y/n/a): See: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/sep08/minutes_01_0908_unapproved.pdf Straw Poll #5 (See Page 10): I believe that the 40GbE serial PMD proposal is worthy of consideration in a future project. Results: Y: 86 I interpret this as significant interest by those present in the 802.3ba group at that meeting in a serial effort, but a desire to focus on the adopted proposal for the current defined project. The decision of the Task Force and this subsequent straw poll was reported to the 802.3WG at my opening plenary report in Nov 2008. Please see http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/nov08/1108_ba_open_report.pdf. In my opinion further offline discussions, however, illustrated to me that many asking for the serial solution were really looking for a solution for the application space defined in the CFI request made by Mark Nowell: "What are the needs of the carrier space? In my opinion this question clearly illustrates why we use study groups. With that said if a study group is formed, it would clearly be the responsibility of the study group to respond to the 5 criteria. And I would have to see these responses before voting yes to approve the PAR / 5 Criteria / objectives. As far as the scope of 802.3ba covering this effort, that point could be argued. However, I think we would both agree that .3ba is already a fairly large project, but IMHO everyone agrees that there will be future PHYs that will get added to the 40/100G family. There is precedence, however, for adding a PHY, which could of fit into another project's scope. Look at Gigabit Ethernet and 1000BASE-T. The scope of 802.3z read: Define Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Media Access Control (MAC) parameters and minimal augmentation of its operation, physical layer characteristics, repeater functions and management parameters for transfer of 802.3 and Ethernet format frames at 1,000 Mb/s. Provide for both full and half duplex operation at 1,000 Mb/s based on approved 802.3 projects and the 802.3 standard. This would have covered 1000BASE-T. However, in looking at the project, the first meeting of the 1000BASE-T Task Force was Sept 97. At the time it was one meeting cycle before the 802.3z Task Force was scheduled to request going to sponsor ballot. So there is precedence. Also, this effort is often cited as a Task Force spinning out a project - though it is still not clear to me per the rules, how a Task Force goes about that. I guess, as it is often said, this is an example of 802.3 doing something when there is consensus to do it. Regards! John -----Original Message----- From: David Law [mailto:David_Law@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:03 AM To: STDS-802-3-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [802.3_DIALOG] [STDS-802-3] Call for interest - 40Gb/s Ethernet Single-mode Fibre PMD Dear Colleagues, I received the following comment from Geoff Thompson in response to the 40Gb/s Ethernet Single-mode Fibre PMD Call for Interest announcement. To keep the email burden low this IEEE 802.3 reflector is only used for announcements and hence is not the appropriate venue to discuss this issue. Since there wasn't really anywhere else that was appropriate I have taken the step of setting up an IEEE 802.3 general discussion reflector at the email address [stds-802-3-dialog@xxxxxxxx] which I have CCed this message to. The IEEE 802.3 general discussion reflector is an opt-in reflector so if you wish to discuss this issue please subscribe to the IEEE 802.3 general discussion reflector at the URL [ http://www.ieee802.org/3/dialog_reflector.html ] or follow the discussion in the reflector email archive at the URL [ http://www.ieee802.org/3/email_dialog/thrd1.html ]. Best regards, David Geoff Thompson <thompson@xxxxxxxx> wrote on 08/10/2009 19:41:18: |