Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802.3_100GCU] FW: Discussion of Objectives



All,

Not sure this message got forwarded to the reflector, so forwarding.

 

Regards,

 

John

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:53 AM
To: John D'Ambrosia; STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Discussion of Objectives

 

John and group,

The objectives are on the right track, but there are a few grammatical and clarity issues.

 

The first is an issue with the wording at the end of each.  The phrase “up to at least” is illogical and confusing because it combines words that specify maxima (i.e. up to) with words that specify minima (i.e. at least).  While this phraseology may be following some precedent of former objectives, it only serves to cloud the real intent.  In the past these objectives have always been interpreted as the requirements for minimum reach.  Therefore I propose that they each simply state it as such by replacing “lengths up to at least” with “lengths of at least”.  

 

Further, I do not know what is intended by the phrase “for links consistent with lengths”.  Why use the word “consistent”?  Is there a perception of some increased flexibility or some other advantage?  Please explain.  If the advantage is ambiguity, I would prefer stating objectives more crisply. 

 

Unless your rationale for this word choice is compelling, I propose combining these two issues into the following new phrase: “for link lengths of at least”.  

 

Lastly, it would be simpler and clearer to place all the adjectives describing “traces” before the noun rather than some before and some after.  Rearranging these yields ”over improved FR-4 copper traces”.

 

With all three of these changes, the two draft objectives become:

 

·         Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over improved FR-4 copper traces for links lengths of at least “X” m.

 

·         Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper twin-axial cables for links lengths of at least “Y” m.

 

Of course all these grammatical improvements do not address the main issues which are the values of X and Y.  But that is what study groups are for.

 

Regards,

Paul Kolesar

 


From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:00 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GCU] Discussion of Objectives

 

All,

I wanted to try and foster some discussion on the reflector regarding objectives for the project to help all focus their planning of presentations for March. 

 

So what do we appear to have consensus on so far?

a)      We are in a  study group looking at 100GbE over backplane and copper twin-ax

b)      Legacy support indicates broad market potential would be aided by 4 lane solutions

 

What appears to need further consensus building?  Well the big ones would seem to be reach for both backplane and cu cabling objectives. 

 

So if we can combine where we appear to have consensus with what we need to resolve, the following two statements could be used as strawmans for objectives for the group to work towards (leaving the reach #’s as variables for now):

 

·         Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper traces on improved FR-4 for links consistent with lengths up to at least “X” m.

 

·         Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper twin-axial cables for links consistent with lengths up to at least “Y” m.

 

Feedback?

 

John