| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear Colleagues – Adee has requested that we reconsider comment #157 in our next call (see below). We did a decisive a straw poll to close this comment on the 3/18 interim to close the comment. Given that we already spent time on the previous call discussing this topic, I would expect to see further discussion via the reflector towards a different outcome in order to necessitate using our precious meeting time to re-open.
Does anyone else have study or opinion they would like to discuss on this topic? Please do so via the reflector… ~Beth For your reference: Comment #157 Comment Tr TBD Suggested Remedy Change it to Tr =6.5 ps, which is consistent with CEI-112G-PAM4-MR Closed Response ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. Based on the result of straw poll #4 implement the suggested remedy. Straw poll #4: I support closing comment #157 with the suggested remedy. Yes: 18 No: 13 Abstain: 21 From: Ran, Adee <adee.ran@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Beth, I would like to appeal the closure of comment 157 (setting Tr=6.5 ps for C2C COM calculation, Annex 120F). Despite the simple reasoning of the change (scaling from 50G), the value in this comment has not been discussed before the call, and there is no presentation accompanying the comment to show the effect of this
value and/or consensus behind it. As I stated during the call, this change may have significant implications on technical feasibility of transmitters, with perhaps little effect on C2C channel compliance. Accepting a somewhat arbitrary value without the necessary technical discussion would likely result in a lot of debate in future meetings to change an “accepted” value. This would be a waste of many people’s
time and may delay the project. The straw poll result, Yes: 18, No:13, Abstain:21, suggests that this result has questionable consensus. As such, it would be better to defer the resolution and allow technical discussion on the reflector. Note that the related comments #66, #67, and #155 (clauses 162 and 163) have not been closed or discussed. It would be good to discuss all these comments together, preferably with some supporting material and
consensus building. Best regards, </Adee> From: Elizabeth Kochuparambil (edonnay) <00000b6647231c5d-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for the great call this morning! I appreciate everyone being respectful of the operating rules. Kent, Matt, and I felt that fruitful discussions were had, yet the closing of comments remained the focus. Thank you all! As promised, the minutes and closed comment report are now posted. http://www.ieee802.org/3/ck/public/20_03/minutes_3ck_01_0320.pdf http://www.ieee802.org/3/ck/public/20_03/closedcomments_3ck_01_0320.pdf The deadline for appealing any of these closed comments is Friday 3/20 AoE via the reflector. See slide 10 of my agenda deck for more information. Cheers! ~Beth Comments closed during the 3/18 meeting:
The remaining comments have been tabled to a future meeting:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100GEL list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100GEL&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100GEL list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100GEL&A=1 |