Re: [802.3_DMLT] [IEEE 802.3 SG DMLT] Result of the York meeting

[Brad Booth <bbooth@xxxxxxxx>]

Hugh,

 

I agree with Marek's point about defining the scope relative to speed. We have constrained specific features to specific data rates in the past. Leaving this open to speeds > 10G I believe goes beyond the scope that was brought forth in the CFI to satisfy a specific market requirement.

 

If this project is to be speed independent, I would feel better about this effort becoming its own dot rather than being in .3.

 

Thanks,

Brad

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Hugh Barrass (hbarrass) <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Marek,

 

The way I read the PAR and objectives, any change to a PHY would be out of scope. So I don’t see why PHYs should be referenced at all. I would interpret objective #4 to mean that no PHY clauses will be opened – if that is not the case, then there should be some explanation.

 

If you are suggesting that some text should be included in the standard that says that mechanisms defined in “speed independent clauses” must not be used at certain speeds then I would object to the text and I would also be certain that users would ignore that text if it should make it to publication. Once it’s defined, it will be used by those who want to use it.

 

Hugh.

 

From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:18 AM
To: STDS-802-3-DMLT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_DMLT] [IEEE 802.3 SG DMLT] Result of the York meeting

 

Dear Ludwig,

 

Having had more time to examine the latest changes to the objectives, as well as the EPON-specific contribution, I would like to clarify my support for this proposal. What I support is the IET function for P2P PHYs up to 10 Gbps. I do not think the arguments on Monday about support for 40, 100 and higher speed PHYs hold much water. I also do not think we should go with a wide brush and simply change all PHYs just because we can.

 

Regarding the P2MP links. The EPON presentation given on Monday clearly demonstrates the hypothetical need for frame fragmentation (specifically, in EPON), but it fails to demonstrate how that ties with IET. Also, the topic of 1G-EPON was not even touched, even though it has a different FEC-type (frame based versus stream based), where each frame has to be accompanied by its own parity.

 

To move this effort forward, I would suggest we narrow down the objectives to P2P PHYs only, operating at the speeds up to 10 Gbps.

 

The need for IET in P2MP systems (EPON and EPoC) needs to be studied further within the Task Force (if and once established) and if within the TF we later on come to conclusion that it is technically feasible, justified, and needed, we can always add a new objective. Adding objectives is never a problem, once it is properly justified to the WG membership. The same holds true for 40G+ PHYs.

 

Regards

 

Marek

 

From: Winkel, Ludwig [mailto:ludwig.winkel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 5:43 PM
To: STDS-802-3-DMLT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_DMLT] [IEEE 802.3 SG DMLT] Result of the York meeting

 

Et al,

 

The PAR, 5C, and Objectives, as released by SG DMLT in York, are on the DMLT web server.

http://www.ieee802.org/3/DMLT/index.html

 

Thanks to all that contributed and supported this effort.

 

 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With best regards,
Ludwig Winkel
   Chair of IEEE 802.3 SG DMLT

   Chair of IEC SC65C/WG17

   Chair of IEC SC65C/MT9

 

Siemens AG , I IA SC FC
Oestliche Rheinbrueckenstr. 50
76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
Tel.: +49 721 595-6098
Mobile: +49 172 6132658
mailto:ludwig.winkel@xxxxxxxxxxx

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Joe Kaeser, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Suess; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322