John,
I’m surprised by your response considering you asked us to share comments on the reflector.
By resources, I meant (as Jeff highlighted) those planning to attend the meetings. PAM4 and coherent will have a significant overlap of individuals wanting to participate or having valid technical input in each effort. As an end user that works with PAM4 and coherent technologies operating at these reaches, both have levels of complexity that would likely keep their standard development timelines very close. Therefore, I believe it is best to keep P802.3cn as a single task force.
Thank you,
Brad
From: John DAmbrosia
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 5:58 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Moving Forward - splitting the P802.3cn PAR?
Jeff,
If these two efforts were not heading in such different directions (PAM4 versus coherent) I would understand this concern.
Even if this were a single task force – individuals could still leave during focus on one effort or the other.
John
From: Jeffery Maki <jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 8:56 PM
To: John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_B10K] Moving Forward - splitting the P802.3cn PAR?
John,
My only concern at this point is attendance of the two task forces. I see the best result stemming from participation by individuals in the full scope of work. With two separate task forces, we prompt or allow people to choose one over the other.
Jeff
From: John DAmbrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 5:40 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Moving Forward - splitting the P802.3cn PAR?
Brad,,
As Acting Task Force Chair – I will have to disagree with you. Your argument against splitting focuses on the resources. The reality is that as TF chair I would have to schedule both efforts anyway. Having two task forces just allows scheduling the different timelines. So from a resource issue I don’t see the issue.
Regards
John
From: Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 8:33 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B10K] Moving Forward - splitting the P802.3cn PAR?
I would be concerned about splitting this PAR. While 802.3 did this in the past with 802.3z and 802.3ab, those projects had very different participants and areas of focus (.3z being optical 1G and .3ab being 1000BASE-T).
While P802.3cn may have more presentations than past Study Groups (still TBD), I believe it does a disservice to split this effort and the expertise that needs to be involved in developing the draft standard. Time and resources are not infinite, and in my humble opinion, through consensus building and proper management of the project, the concerns about the volume of presentation material or timelines can be sufficiently addressed.
To date, 802.3 has already had significant issues in scheduling meetings to limit the conflicts that can occur with those wanting to attend more than one study group or task force. Splitting this study group will only add to this conflict.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brad Booth
Principal Hardware Engineering Manager
Microsoft Azure
From: John DAmbrosia
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 12:32 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B10K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_B10K] Moving Forward - splitting the P802.3cn PAR?
All,
I spoke with David Law, 802.3WG Chair today, about moving IEEE P802.3cn forward.
Some may recall that in the May 2018 Study Group meeting, there was discussion about splitting the project up due to anticipated different timelines for the 40 and 80km related objectives. See http://www.ieee802.org/3/B10K/public/18_05/index.shtml.
David informed me that per Item 9.2 of the IEEE 802 LMSC Operations Manual the P802.3cn PAR could be divided, and that this request could be made at the November Plenary -
At the discretion of the Sponsor Chair, PARs for ordinary items (e.g., Maintenance PARs) and PAR changes essential to the orderly conduct of business (e.g., division of existing work items or name changes to harmonize with equivalent ISO JTC-1 work items) may be placed on the Sponsor agenda if delivered to Sponsor members 48 hours in advance.
Based on my conversations with individuals, I am anticipating more presentations than we have seen with previous Study Group meetings. Therefore, I am planning on setting up an ad hoc call prior to the Nov Plenary to discuss this issue, as well as have proposed PAR / CSD for the split of work for this discussion. I will get the announcement out after I have had a chance to review the schedule for other 802.3 TF / SG ad hoc calls.
In the meantime – please feel free to share any comments on the reflector.
Regards,
John D’Ambrosia
Acting Chair, IEEE P802.3cn Task Force
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B10K list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B10K&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B10K list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B10K&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B10K list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B10K&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B10K list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B10K&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B10K list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B10K&A=1