| Colleagues:
We strive to provide one solution to a problem, not two. This is not always easy to decide. As we all know, sometimes what we choose one year is no longer optimal so, a project will be started in later years to provide a more economical solution that the previous solution. This has been the case with number of lanes (technology advances allow higher transmit rates and consequently fewer lanes as an example).
If there is no significant difference in cost and link length between green and red LED, then we would have a hard time including two solutions to the same problem in the draft. I believe some in the TF have stated that a green laser could provide a longer link distance (with different cost) and that a longer link opens up new application possibilities. I believe something like that justifies a second PMD option in the draft. If there is no significant difference between green and red LED cost, or if they don’t support different applications, then the discussion would have to be that green is better than red and should be the chosen solution.
As Ruben pointed out, once we have a draft in review or ballot, the correct method for suggesting changes is to submit comments on the draft. Presentations in support of comments will be allowed at our meeting where appropriate (this topic would be appropriate as it is a very significant change). All comments should suggest specific draft changes. So, a proposed addition of a green LED should be backed up with all of the technical specifications to be included in the draft that we now have for the red LED.
—Bob
Dear Kagami-san, dear all,
I think that green LED is a good idea as concept. Moreover, it not against the PAR, CSD and Objectives.
The parameters of the PMD for GEPOF using green LED could be included in clause 115, following the strategy of C/38 for defining different PMDs targeted to same PCS/PMA, or, on the other hand, it may be addressed in other additional PMD (C/116?). I think C/115 may be better, because both PMDs are strongly related.
However, I see this proposal a bit late, considering the current status of the draft.
From the technical point of view, the main specification points for the green LED, taking into account the semiconductor is different, are: - Speed, bandwidth, rise/fall time
- Linearity
- Power, as tradeoff with speed and linearity
- Extinction ratio, as tradeoff with quantum noise in receiver and linearity
I think EAF is the easiest part.
In any way, I see that we do not have involved in the TF members/companies with experience in green LED able to define the parameters, the parameters being compatible with feasible, reliable and implementable devices. Because of that, I think that trying to include the green LED in the draft will delay a lot the schedule of whole the project. Green LED is not needed to fit the market needs and objectives that drive the development of this project. Therefore, personally I think it is not a good idea to include now green LED in the 802.3bv project.
Finally, as comment editor of this project, I kindly ask everybody to use the standard procedure for submitting comments. Comments related to green LED topic will be addressed by the TF during the plenary.
Best regards,
Rubén
_____________________________________ Rubén Pérez de Aranda Alonso CTO KDPOF - Knowledge Development for POF http://www.kdpof.com_____________________________________
Dear Bob-san and GEPOF members, It has already been discussed, but I recommend to add a green-LED (center wavelength 500-530 nm) to the draft. We will be able to use the power related parameters as the same parameter of the red-LED on a temporary basis. We can show the EAF comparison between red and green-LED at Waikoloa ad-Hoc mtg. Best regard, Manabu Kagami Toyota Central R&D Labs., Inc. On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 23:42:13 -0700 ROBERT GROW < bobgrow@xxxxxxx> wrote: Dear Colleagues:
This is the announcement of the electronic IEEE 802.3bv Task Force review on the draft amendment IEEE P802.3bv/D1.1 Gigabit Ethernet Over Plastic Optical Fiber. For TF review, we will use the same tools used for Working Group ballot (described below). This draft will also be presubmitted for consideration at the July 802.3 plenary meeting to Working Group ballot.
SCOPE:
As a Task Force review, the scope is the complete IEEE P802.3bv draft.
REVIEW CLOSE:
Friday 3rd July 2015 23:59 AOE (anywhere on earth)
PROJECT DOCUMENTS:
Our PAR, CSD and Objectives are available at: www.ieee802.org/3/bv
Thank you for your participation in this Task Force review and careful review of the draft.
Bob Grow
Chair, IEEE 802.3bv GEPOF Task Force
bob.grow@xxxxxxxx
(M): +1 858 705 1829
----------------------------------------------------------------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMMENTING ON: IEEE P802.3bv draft D1.1
Instructions for accessing the draft and submitting comments follow.
HOW TO ACCESS THE DRAFT
The draft is posted for your review for balloting purposes only, and neither the draft nor access information should be copied or redistributed to others in violation of document copyrights.
The IEEE P802.3bv GEPOF draft D1.1 may be downloaded from:
URL: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bv/private/P8023bv_D1p1.pdf
Username: [Please use the IEEE 802.3 or IEEE P802.3bv username]
Password: [Please use the IEEE 802.3 or IEEE P802.3bv password]
If you are a GEPOF or 802.3 participant and have not copied the username/password when presented at a meeting, please send an email and I will provide the TF username/password to you.
This document is posted in Adobe "pdf" document format and can be downloaded and printed if desired. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, it may be downloaded for free downloading from Adobe from:
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS
Acceptable comment types:
E = Editorial
ER = Editorial Required (a binding comment that if we were voting would be part of a DISAPPROVE vote, in WG ballot only appropriate for an IEEE 802.3 voting member)
T = Technical
TR = Technical Required (a binding comment that if we were voting would be part of a DISAPPROVE vote, in WG ballot only appropriate for an IEEE 802.3 voting member)
1. Prepare your comments in one of the following two ways:
a. You are STRONGLY REQUESTED to use the comment tool at the URL:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/WG_tools/filemaker/Generic_Commenting_Tool.zip
To use the tool, extract all components into a folder and do not move any component from that folder as this will cause the executable to not work correctly. The tool is:
Comment_Tool_Generic_Solution.exe
b. To submit comments in text (ASCII) form, please use the form below. This will make it possible for the editor to properly record and track all submissions. Make as many copies of the template as necessary and submit as an ASCII text file or as part of your e-mail.
PLEASE NOTE: The ASCII method involves a manual transcription, hence you are recommended to check your comments to ensure accurate transcription when the comment file is made available. Please use the comment tool above if possible.
------CUT AND PASTE TEXT BELOW THIS LINE ONLY PLEASE--------
CommentID: (Leave Blank)
CommenterName:
CommenterEmail:
CommenterPhone:
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany:
Clause:
Subclause:
Page:
Line:
CommentType: (E, ER, T, or TR)
Comment:
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy:
RemedyEnd:
--------------------end comment template------------------
2. Send your comments To: Rubén Pérez-Aranda <rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx> and Robert Grow <bob.grow@xxxxxxxx>. Additionally please paste into the subject line:
IEEE P802.3bv GEPOF D1.1 comments
|