[jabl]

> The chassis [snip] specifications are pretty generally usable.

IMHO it's a bit stupid they made the OCP chassis/rack spec incompatible with the standard EIA 19" rack (Yes, there's the Open19 stuff etc., but talking about the "main" OCP racks here). If you're going to break with the established standard, at least make something substantially different with scope for significant improvement. As it is, the OCP rack design is just subtly different from the 19" to be annoying but doesn't bring any huge improvements, fracturing the market for very little benefit.

[wmf]

Open Rack has totally different power distribution than industry-standard racks and it uses OUs instead of Us. How much more difference do you want?

[jabl]

Well standard racks don't really tell anything about how power distribution is handled. So why not make the OCP rack an extension of the EIA 19" rack? As it is, it's slightly wider, and as you mention the OU is slightly different from the EIA RU height. That would have enabled vendors to use the same sheet metal boxes, and MB dimensions etc. etc. for standard 19" gear and OCP gear. Or if you're going to be different, at least make it sufficiently different to be worthwhile. Is a 19-21" rack with ~RU/OU sized shelves really the optimal, or can we do something completely different that would be better (for some definition of better)?