List Home Dates Threads Authors Subjects
fibre_channel - Fwd: [fibre_channel] Groups - T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf uploaded Message Thread: Previous | Next
  • To: "Wallace, Dean" <Dean.Wallace@xxxxxxxxxx>, fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:02:40 -0400
Thx Dean - Sounds like a plan...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wallace, Dean <Dean.Wallace@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: [fibre_channel] Groups - T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf uploaded
To: Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Adrian


That makes sense. I won’t reschedule a conference call for this.


I didn’t ask for a Joint T11.2/T11.3 meeting in August but we can schedule this in the FC-PI-7 ad hoc and make sure everyone knows when we will discuss it in case of the T11.3 people want to attend to listen.




From: Adrian Butter []
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:04 AM
To: Wallace, Dean <Dean.Wallace@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Subject: Fwd: [fibre_channel] Groups - T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf uploaded


External Email

Hi Dean (et al),


Based on factoring in the use of Precoding for 256GFC links & an initial review of the associated Ethernet error modeling results, I don't believe there is a need to consider anything as extreme as a signal processing architecture change for FS-5 - So I don't plan to further suggest such an option. Instead, I would rather focus on analysis of the available Ethernet error modeling results to quantify BER differences between the 64GFC & 256GFC vs 50GbE & 200GbE architecture approaches. It may be useful to consider such data in the context of optimally managing 64GFC & 256GFC links. In view of that change in direction, Scott Kipp suggested (& I agree) that presenting such a contribution would best be done at the August Joint T11.2/T11.3 (& perhaps also at the T11.2?) ad hoc rather than an off-cycle conference call. Beyond that, since my current contribution T11-2018-00199-v000 is essentially invalid, I'm thinking it best if I delete that from the T11 data base so as not to propagate bad information.


In the meantime, for anyone interested in supporting &/or reviewing the analysis contribution I'm preparing, please send me a note advising of your interest so I can loop you in. Any feedbsck you may have to offer would be much appreciated!


Thanks & Regards,


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wallace, Dean <Dean.Wallace@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: [fibre_channel] Groups - T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf uploaded
To: David Peterson <david.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Butter <>
Cc: "" <>

HI Adrian


I will cancel the meeting on the Website and send a cancelation notice out to the reflector (beside this one). We can reschedule when you are ready.


Speedy recovery!!




From: David Peterson []
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 1:57 PM
To: Adrian Butter <>
Cc: Wallace, Dean <Dean.Wallace@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Subject: Re: [fibre_channel] Groups - T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf uploaded


External Email

Howdy Adrian,


Thanks for the update, Dean will reschedule, and take care of your eye(s) 👍




On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:20 PM Adrian Butter <> wrote:

Hi Folks,


Based on some very important feedback provided by Mike Dudek (thanks Mike!), there is a fundamental functional difference between 256GFC & 200GbE which I overlooked in the current document posting (e.g. use of Precoding for 256GFC). This renders much of the analysis & conclusions in the current posting invalid. I've been working on an updated document version which properly accounts for Precoding. However, those updates are not yet complete. It also hasn't helped that I'm currently recovering from emergency eye surgery last Thurs night (scary stuff!), so I'd suggest the Tues ad hoc for this discussion be deferred to a later date. Once the updates are complete, I'll post the revised version - And thereafter we can plan a new time for the joint call. Apologies for the late notice...





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adrian Butter <>
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:49 PM
Subject: [fibre_channel] Groups - T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf uploaded

Submitter's message
Presentation to be discussed at the T11.2/T11.3 Joint Ad Hoc conference call being scheduled for 19-June-2018 at 10 AM PDT.
-- Mr. Adrian Butter

Document Name: T11-2018-00199-v000.pdf

Describes key signal processing differences between 256GFC (per FC-FS-5) &
200GbE (per 802.3bs-2017 & 802.3cd) which will impact the link budget for
PI-7P; Quantifies the impact in the context of prior 802.3bs project error
modeling work & implications for PI-7P; Outlines options going forward.
Download Latest Revision

Submitter: Mr. Adrian Butter
Group: T11 - Fibre Channel Interfaces
Folder: T11 Document Register 2018
Date submitted: 2018-06-07 11:49:08

InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS)
Secretariat, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1101 K Street NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20005

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This mailing list may not be used for unlawful purposes. All postings should be relevant, but ITI accepts no responsibility for any posting and may terminate access to any subscriber violating any policies of the Association. Please review the INCITS Anti-Trust Guidelines at

Please be advised that replying to this message goes to the sender. If you wish to send a reply to all on the list, please respond with "Reply All". If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.



By Date: Previous | Next Current Thread By Thread: Previous | Next