| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Brad, The challenge in this thread is separating the issues related to the 802.3bs Task Force and the NG100/200GbE Study Group. As Chair of the IEEE P802.3bs Task Force, it is my responsibility to make sure that the Task Force is operating within the rules that we must follow. Therefore, I will address the Task Force perspective only. The NG100G / 200G SG has the charter to address Next Gen 100G and 200G Ethernet. In my opinion, given the perceived synergy between some of the solutions (electrical interfaces and SMF PMDs), there is consensus building to propose that these specific 200GbE solutions be addressed by 802.3bs. For example, reducing the number of electrical or optical lanes from 8 to 4 is seen to be relatively simple, and could be addressed quickly and easily by the 802.3bs Task Force. The 802.3bs PAR, however, is specific to 400GbE, so a PAR modification would be required to have it address these 200GbE related objectives. Changing its PAR to address 200GbE is not within the scope of the 802.3bs Task Force. However, as I understand it, as part of its charter, the NG100/200GbE Study Group could propose a modification to the 802.3bs PAR to the 802.3 WG. Ultimately, the 802.3 WG would be responsible for approving the suggested PAR modification (with subsequent approvals by 802 / NesCom – IEEE-SA Standards Board). I believe that the 802.3WG would look for some sort of indication from the 802.3bs Task Force it would be willing to address this work – consider the 802.3bq project. I will note i have pointed out to the Study Group that as it ponders what work to propose putting in 802.3bs that they need to be cognizant of potential impact on the Task Force schedule, which in my opinion, would be considered by those in the Task Force if asked to consider addressing this work. As Chair, I have felt it my responsibility to inform the 802.3bs Task Force of these discussions. To that end, I informed the TF, via the reflector, of these offline and NGOATH Ad Hoc calls discussions proposing to do some of the work in 802.3bs, as well as encouraged individuals to participate in future SG ad hoc calls. I do agree with you that the observed offline consensus that is building in these discussions has no procedural meaning at this time to the 802.3bs Task Force or for that matter in the Study Group, which hasn’t met yet. However, in the interest of consensus building, I have allowed some conversation on the 802.3bs reflector to allow everyone to understand the concerns and issues with modifying the 802.3bs project, while privately directing discussion regarding 50/100/200G objectives onto the Study Group reflector. Moving forward, I see this issue as beyond our Task Force at this time, but not to the individuals within our Task Force, who may wish to participate in the NG100/200GbE Study Group, which would be within its scope to consider and propose making changes to the 802.3bs PAR. After all, I have always found building consensus to be the biggest challenge to schedule, not process. As this proposal could impact our Task Force, I will continue to keep it informed of ongoing conversations. In addition, I am anticipating a joint session of our Task Force with the Study Groups at the Jan Interim to allow the Task Force to understand the Study Group proposal. Regards, John D’Ambrosia Chair, IEEE P802.3bs 400GbE Task Force |