[802.3ae_Serial] WG: 20ppm unresolved TR comment
Hi all
This is to inform you about responses to Brad concerning some unclosed
comments,
I can give the following information.
I withdraw the comment: TR # 99100 on the receiver sensitivity:
This not due to the fact that the technical reason is gone but due to the
fact that this is simply not in main the problem of my organization, as we
are customers here and acquire those units, but a problem of the people
building transponders. If they can live with the fact to expecting lower
yield or rejections from customers, as a significant number of units will
fail the requirement it's their problem.
As technical background, I at least to the information I have about the
transponders we currently buy I do not see any vendor who would not have a
yield problem for receivers to pass a compliance test of this requirement
with acceptable result.
So the transponder vendors need to do some work.
TR # 99101
While the response to this comment is technically incorrect the comment is
also still valid. The discussion on this method is still ongoing and it uses
a method simulating a model that is not modeling a PT to PT single fiber
impairment but something different.
However the result of this is the same as with the issue above in my view
and so in main a problem of a transponder vendor. (Customers also have an
issue, as they need new acceptance testing and new vendor qualification but
this is less than the issues for component vendors). So, as this also will
likely generate trouble for transponder vendors and not for us, I withdraw
also this comment.
However other comments are unsatisfied:
TR# 99033 unsatisfied
and:
TR # 99036 unsatisfied
For those two there is the fact that a technical comment been answered with
a procedural answer. While a pile on comment of an aother member of an other
voter solving the formal issue of the first comments was rejected with a
statement that was technically incorrect (This technically incorrect
response proves that the comments are correct and required). In fact there
is no way to increase a rate of a data signal other than adding bits (So in
Ethernet terms, frames). Other effects that could influent a momentarily
rate change are jitter and wander (as low frequency portion), which are well
specified and limited by the transport network standards and do not require
a clock tolerance change. So the only way of changing the rate is the use of
incompliant Ethernet equipment, adding Ethernet frames, or other means of
incompliant equipment buffering huge number of bits or dropping frames,
generating SONET frame slips or something of this kind.
Regards Juergen
----------
Von: Booth, Bradley [SMTP:bradley.booth@intel.com]
<mailto:[SMTP:bradley.booth@intel.com]>
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. April 2002 20:46
An: Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick); 'gmgarner@lucent.com'; Rahn,
Juergen (Juergen)
Betreff: 20ppm unresolved TR comment
Gentlemen,
Here are copies of your unsatisfied TRs. I'm sending them to you
now so you
can review them against the response for D4.2 comment 96 to
determine if
you'd like to consider the comment "closed", "unsatisfied" or
"withdrawn".
There was unanimous support by the task force for the response to
comment
96, as it is the opinion of the task force that we've sufficiently
addressed
this concern. It has also been ruled by the working group chair
that any
comments submitted against future drafts requesting 20ppm will not
be
considered a new comment. What this means is that the task force
and the
working group chair are prepared to forward your comments to RevCom
if you
continue to consider them unsatisfied. The task force would prefer
for you
to consider the comments either "closed" or "withdrawn" to show your
support
for P802.3ae.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Thanks,
Brad
Brad Booth
IEEE P802.3ae Editor-in-Chief
bradley.booth@intel.com <mailto:bradley.booth@intel.com>
<mailto:bradley.booth@intel.com <mailto:bradley.booth@intel.com> >
<<GGarner_TR_response.pdf>> <<JRahn_TR_response.pdf>>
<<RTownsend_TR_response.pdf>> <<D4.2_comment_96.pdf>>
<<File: GGarner_TR_response.pdf>><<File:
JRahn_TR_response.pdf>><<File: RTownsend_TR_response.pdf>><<File:
D4.2_comment_96.pdf>>