Re: [802.3_50G] Ad Hoc Chair perspective of 50G/NGOATH progress
Kent,
Thanks for taking this on.
Mark
On 1/7/16, 11:15 AM, "Lusted, Kent C" <kent.c.lusted@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>As the 50G/NGOATH Study Groups Ad Hoc Chair, I have been talking with
>Mark on a path to advance the Study Groups at the January interim
>meeting. It is apparent to me that the meeting will be lively,
>passionate and full of discussion over the many choices that we, as a
>Study Group, must make to complete the necessary documentation.
>
>To help the 50G/NGOATH Study Group progress towards the next step, I plan
>to work with interested participants to prepare some documentation and
>proposals for consensus building. The goal is to have baseline documents
>(i.e. par / csd / objectives) ready for the SGs to review, discuss, and
>possibly adopt (or demolish) at the interim.
>
>Before I get too far, there are a number of different potential scenarios
>and it would be impossible to prepare for all of them. Therefore, it is
>my intention to make my plan clear so that participants can choose to
>support my effort or do their own work on other areas/scenarios that
>won't be covered by what I'm proposing. :)
>
>
>First of all, my assessment from the discussion today is that there is
>consensus building around the formation of a Task Force with the 50 Gb/s
>objectives and the 200 Gb/s multi-lane media PMDs that will be leveraging
>that 50 Gb/s single lane work. This will form my initial target for a
>set of documentation on objectives, CSD and PAR drafts.
>
>
>Secondly, interest was expressed in the ad hoc calls that the NGOATH
>study group propose the 200 Gb/s SMF objectives be handled by the
>P802.3bs Task Force. (Specifically, the proposal was to propose a PAR
>modification of P802.3bs to the 802.3 Working Group and the EC for
>consideration at the March Plenary meeting.) In order to do this with
>minimal impact to P802.3bs schedule, the PAR modification would _need_ to
>be approved by the NGOATH Study Group in January. However, it is
>uncertain at this juncture that this will be a successful path, so I also
>will also try to explore the modifications to the above 50G/200G
>documentation to include the 200Gb/s SMF if it fails.
>
>Lastly, I'm not planning to develop any documentation nor baseline
>proposals for 100 Gb/s objectives based on my assessment on consensus and
>because the aforementioned work should keep me busy enough. I strongly
>encourage others to bring in contributions in that area if they would
>like to champion it.
>
>By no means is this the only possible path. However, I do hope that this
>work spurs the necessary conversation and consensus formation to move us
>forward. :)
>
>Please let me know if you are interested in working with me on this
>approach.
>
>With regards,
>-Kent
>50G & NGOATH Study Groups Ad Hoc Chair