| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
As announced on todays ad hoc, the deadline for requests for presentations for the November plenary is next Wednesday, October 26, 2016, AOE. Please email your request to myself, and to Jon Lewis. If you wish to send your request to the
reflector, that would be better, as other people will then know what to expect to discuss. This helps build consensus. Please include: -
Presenter’s name & affiliation -
Title of the presentation -
A brief summary of what you expect to present and what it is aimed at (support for an objective, support for a particular CSD, PAR modification, etc.). 2 to 3 sentences would be nice. Repeating the title is often not useful. -
Approximate time required for presentation and expected questions. I would like to encourage presentations focused on filling out our objectives and supporting our CSDs and PAR proposal. We have had very useful ad hoc discussion, but in the end, ad hoc discussion is about building consensus. We must
now bring that consensus into the study group meeting. What I would like to see would be summary presentations with pointers to the relevant ad hoc material (no need to repeat the full detail), and what the objective supported is. Additionally, on proposals it is useful to solicit supporters, so that the group can see what has broad support. The process of circulating the proposal often helps build consensus, and brings out any areas that would require discussion
on the floor. Particular areas needed: -
Wording of our power objective(s) and how they relate to PoDL, intrinsic safety, etc. -
Wording for our BER objective -
Information for technical feasibility (Really needed before the November meeting…):
o
Some electrical description (ohms loop resistance, dB loss at some relevant fixed frequency, for example, 10MHz) of the various use case link segments (15m automotive, 15m industrial, 40m transportation/industrial, 200m industrial
spur link, and 1km industrial trunk) -
Information on possible additional objectives, if they are to be considered: (see
http://www.ieee802.org/3/10SPE/public/adhoc/zimmerman_101016_10SPE_01_adhoc.pdf)
o
If you want an additional objective, explain the impact if an objective is not adopted, and why it needs to be an objective, and not just a product feature. (an objective can really shape the project. A product feature is something
that may make a device desirable, but isn’t going to change the direction of the project)
o
Open possible objectives which have been discussed include multi-drop, link diagnostics, fast-link recovery/tolerance of interruptions, and whether we define a reduced-complexity MAC/PHY interface in the standard. Issues are
below.
§
Definition of issues related to multi-drop, or (my personal preference) consensus that we can meet our CSDs without multi-drop, but will not preclude considering it in task force. See slides 5 & 6 of the referenced presentation
for details.
·
Technical Feasibility is an issue – Very little uncertainty on PHY communication focus is on the multiple access method
·
Multi-access (CSMA/CD, TDMA, etc.) and MAC protocols – how does it fit into 802.3?
·
Powering technology for hot-installation
·
Failure analysis/fault isolation needs to be proven
·
What is meant by autonegotiation in this scenario
§
Other possible objectives, or recommendation not to make these objectives:
·
Link Quality diagnostics? – Is this big enough that it needs to be an objective?
·
PHY/MAC interface? – Do we need an objective to define a reduced complexity interface?, or can this be left to industry
·
Link loss recovery? a ‘fast recovery’ objective, and if so, how long? (there was some contention around this, and some further discussion of what is meant would be useful) Finally, please use the reflector to fill in issues that you can. If you have an opinion or a question, don’t wait for the ad hoc, use the reflector – others may have different answers, or even the same questions. By asking your questions
(and answering, respectfully) publicly, you can help build consensus. George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 |