I agree. It’s always been easier for a Task Force to do better than the objective, but not so easy to go the other direction.
Cheers,
Brad
From: Rob Stone
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 5:43 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] BER Discussion
Thanks Mark for making this proposal. It seems like a good objective we can further hone as we receive additional contributions on the tradeoffs.
Rob
From: "Cedric Lam (林 峯)" <000011675c2a7243-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "Cedric Lam (林 峯)" <clam@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 3:14 PM
To: "STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] BER Discussion
+1
--
Cedric F. Lam
Cell: +1 (949) 351-2766
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 2:46 PM Mark Gustlin (mgustlin) <00000ca015ef9343-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John,
One path forward in the study group for the BER objective is to adopt the same objective that we had in 802.3bs:
Support a BER of better than or equal to 10-13 at the MAC/PLS service interface (or the frame loss ratio equivalent)
With the intention to investigate if we can further improve the BER objective without a high cost (power/complexity) once we are into the details of the FEC options, modulation options etc. (in task force).
Thanks, Mark
From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:48 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_B400G] BER Discussion
All,
This week’s Study Group included some very good technical discussion on BER. In my opinion these discussions ventured into a number of different areas that included not just the BER discussion, but started to go into the FEC architecture, application needs, and discussion of all of the necessary analysis.
While I recognize this discussion needs to happen, we do need to remember the process. It is not the role of the Study Group to define the actual future standard. Instead we define the project that will work on the development of the actual standard.
Therefore, performing the full analysis to resolve the BER issue to everyone’s satisfaction is something that likely won’t happen until we are in Task Force. We need to identify the Ethernet rate or rates to be considered, the physical layer specifications, the specific FEC architecture, etc. Please keep this in mind.
Also, as a reminder, the Study Group has a 6 month life with one 6 month extension. So time is clearly an issue.
Therefore, I will note to everyone, we will need to identify objectives that the group can live with, knowing that objectives can always be exceeded or changed (assuming the necessary consensus is achieved), in order for the actual project to progress.
Please keep this in mind, as we look to define this project and move forward.
I welcome everyone’s feedback and would encourage the Study Group to leverage using the reflector.
Regards,
John D’Ambrosia
Chair, IEEE 802.3 Beyond 400 Gb/s Ethernet Study Group
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1