| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Copying the 50 Gb/s Ethernet and NGOATH Ethernet Study Groups reflector as this discussion originated there but it jumped over to the 400Gb/s reflector and has been on-going there. Can we please copy the SG reflector on these discussions…
Brad,
I don’t think we’ve yet done anything that is changing anything against our usual practices.
As we’ve discussed many times, we initiated 2 study groups in order to study the two (related) topics on an optimized single lane project for 50Gb/s Ethernet and the other study group to study the multiple lane variants of that.
As was discussed and presented in the first ad hoc, http://www.ieee802.org/3/50G/public/adhoc/archive/nowell_120215_50GE_NGOATH_adhoc.pdf regardless of
how this work gets “handled” in Task Forces it does not mean that we miss or avoid any of the requirements to justify the work (CSD, objectives, PARs).
The starting point of assumption has always been that these 2 SGs form 2 Task Forces. What has emerged from the discussions is that many are realizing that some of the potential objectives for the NGOATH are essentially incremental work for the 802.3bs
TF and so some work has been done to start exploring what could or should be added to the .3bs project in a way that is beneficial (accelerates market availability, commonality of expertise, leverage of specs) without it being detrimental (schedule impact).
I don’t see this as a short circuiting of the process. We primarily have to pick objectives first. This is independent at some level to where the work will be done. Once we’ve done that we then work the project documentation to justify where the work
should be done.
Pete Anslow and Matt Brown did a further analysis looking at some of the possibilities of how the potential objectives could be partitioned into Task Forces http://www.ieee802.org/3/50G/public/adhoc/archive/anslow_120915_50GE_NGOATH_adhoc.pdf.
Again it showed ways we could consider moving forward. But as was discussed during the presentation, this did not advocate what objectives should be adopted.
Right now I see:
There is nothing that says if the SG doesn’t reach 75% on an objective that it needs to keep circling that topic even it is is within scope of the SG charter. For example if we don’t adopt some of the potential 100G objectives, that doesn’t prevent us
from moving forward if there is agreement to do so
As I said, I do not believe we are in any way trying to go outside of operating rules. I’ve no interest in doing so, and I doubt John has either – and I know that David Law will step in at any time he sees something heading in the wrong direction. If
there is some consensus forming within the .3bs Task Force that they want to add some objectives which requires change of their scope and CSD, then that would have to follow the usual operating procedures for that in line with what has been done before. Until
that is seen to be happening, my assumption is that we’re following usual Study Group procedures to decide what to do and document it appropriately.
Obviously this is all happening in parallel and there is some urgency in mind since, if the .3bs TF do want to do this, the sooner it happens the less schedule impact it occurs.
Regards…Mark
From: Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxx> Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM To: "802.3 400GE" <STDS-802-3-400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-400G] 答复: [STDS-802-3-400G] New 50G/100G/200G SG - Potential Impact on 802.3bs? Jonathan,
The 25GBASE-T merging into the 40GBASE-T project is an understandable analogy. Both 25GBASE-T and 40GBASE-T had unique CSDs and PARs; therefore, merging them in relation to the resources made sense.
My understanding is that the NG 100G and 200G will have its own CSD and PAR. While I can understand the need to address resource limitations (as a matter of fact, I highlighted this concern back in June/July with the 802.3 officers), what I was trying
to understand is why .3bs would need to modify its PAR or CSD to accommodate 200G. To me, that sounded like we were advocating pulling something out of a study group to modify an existing project.
Just want to understand if we're operating within our working group and sponsor rules.
Thanks,
Brad On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Jonathan King
<jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|