Re: [802.3_ISAAC] IEEE P802p3dm D2p0 proposed responses available on web

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi George,

Peter’s comment does a few things.

It changes the number of symbols from

L x 1800 x u to simply L x 1800.

It then changes u and uses it in a new definition Training Frame which is defined to be u x 1800.

For baseline. If we all agree that

10G, L = 1 1800 symbols
10G, L = 2, 3600 symbols
10G, L = 4, 7200 symbols
5G, L = 1, 3600 symbols
5G, L = 2, 7200 symbols
2.5G, L = 1, 3600 symbols
training frame is always 7200 symbols

Then comment 285 for example:

In the current text/diagram:

PAM2 u = 2 (2.5G, 5G)

PAM4 u = 1 (10G)

Symbols = L x 1800 x u then

10G, L = 1 1800 = 1 x 1800 x 1 symbols
10G, L = 2, 3600 = 2 x 1800 x 1 symbols
10G, L = 4, 7200 = 4 x 1800 x 1 symbols
5G, L = 1, 3600 = 1 x 1800 x 2 symbols
5G, L = 2, 7200 = 2 x 1800 x 2 symbols
2.5G, L = 1, 3600 = 1 x 1800 x 2 symbols

In the proposed remedy

(u is changed for PAM2 but it is irrelevant here since the equation below does not use u)

Symbols = L x 1800

10G, L = 1 1800 = 1 x 1800 symbols
10G, L = 2, 3600 = 2 x 1800 symbols
10G, L = 4, 7200 = 4 x 1800 symbols
5G, L = 1, 1800 = 1 x 1800 symbols
5G, L = 2, 3600 = 2 x 1800 symbols
2.5G, L = 1, 1800 = 1 x 1800 symbols

Clearly this is wrong.

There is also no need to make any equation for training frame of u x 1800 since it is 7200 for all speed and interleave options.

Thanks,

William

From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 1:03 PM
To: William Lo <will@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_ISAAC] IEEE P802p3dm D2p0 proposed responses available on website

William – Thank you very much for indicating what the issues are in EZ pulls – it will help all of us. Others might well follow suit.

FYI – on the first 3, the subclauses brought in are the ones referenced in the ‘subclause’ section of the comment – they are not in the draft. They are the 2 interleave registers and the test control registers from multigbase-t1.

On comment 78, thank you for pulling this – I was going to request it – but believe the right response is an AIP to delete the statement that confused Adee, in 191.8.1, where it erroneously says “MultiG+100M/100M+MultiGBASE-V1 PHYs do not support Auto-Negotiation.” (page 144 line 8)

I’m not sure what you’re saying is incorrect with Peter’s remedies on 285-288 – only that you don’t feel the need to put the length of the training frame there on Figure 191-11 (I disagree, if we are stating the length of the frame which can be either training or RS-FEC data, we should have all relevant cases), so Lx1800 and some way of representing the training frame (we could just say 7200 symbols) is needed. Right now it reads like the training frame length is dependent on L, which is wrong. Rejecting shouldn’t bethe issue, but I’m not seeing what you think is actually wrong with Peter’s suggestion.

The rest of these are straightforward – again, thanks for doing this. Prethinking it out will save time.

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

From: William Lo <00005d57449a68e9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 12:19 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] IEEE P802p3dm D2p0 proposed responses available on website

Hi Natalie,

I found issues with the following in the EZ bucket. Please pull.

All -

In the interest of time please see the last column in the table below as to the issues I see so we are prepared to discuss them.

CommentID

CommenterName

CommenterCo

Clause

Subclause

Page

Line

CommentType

Comment

SuggestedRemedy

Response

Topic

Why remove from EZ

184

Wienckowski, Natalie

IVN Solutions LLC; Ethernovia & Bosch

45.2.1.244.1

missing register that needs to be updated for 191

Bring in this section from 802.3, as modified by 802.3cy and add references to 191.3.2.2.14, 191.5.2.4.5 and 191.5.2.5.4, with editorial license.

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

What exactly are we bringing in?

185

Wienckowski, Natalie

IVN Solutions LLC; Ethernovia & Bosch

45.2.1.245.1

missing register that needs to be updated for 191

Bring in this section from 802.3, as modified by 802.3cy and add references to 191.3.2.2.14, 191.5.2.4.5 and 191.5.2.5.4 , with editorial license.

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

What exactly are we bringing in?

186

Wienckowski, Natalie

IVN Solutions LLC; Ethernovia & Bosch

45.2.1.246

missing register that needs to be updated for 191

Bring in this section from 802.3, as modified by 802.3cy and add appropriate references, with editorial license.

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

What exactly are we bringing in?

Ran, Adee

Cisco Systems

191

191.1.2

The right side of Figure 191-2 shows the -V1 stack with an AN block, referred to as optional, and the text above the figure points to clause 98 for the whole family (including -V1). Also in 191.1.3 AN is mentioned for both T1 and V1, and there are numerous other mentions of AN in the clause.

However, in 191.8.1 it is stated that -V1 PHYs do not support AN.

Delete the AN block from the right-hand stack and delete the -V1 family from references to AN.

Conside how to clarify that AN is not supported (even as an option) in -V1, in the other mentions of AN.

PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.

See #158 which deletes the text in question.

Propose Reject
Do not change the diagrams because V1 is supporting AN.

285

van Dyck, Peter

Infineon

191

191.3.2.2

Figure 191-11: For 10G, a RS-FEC superframe always has L x 1800 PAM4 symbols. A Training frame always has 7200 PAM2 symbols. The training frame symbols match the data path symbols for a case with L=4

Replace:
RS-FEC superframe (L × 1800 × u symbols)
With:
RS-FEC superframe (L × 1800 symbols) / Training Frame (u x 1800 symbols)

Replace:
For PAM2 path, V=2 and u=2
With:
For PAM2 path, V=2 and u=4

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

Propose Reject:
The remedy is not correct.
Expanding this out all the cases
10G, L = 1 1800 symbols
10G, L = 2, 3600 symbols
10G, L = 4, 7200 symbols
5G, L = 1, 3600 symbols
5G, L = 2, 7200 symbols
2.5G, L = 1, 3600 symbols
So the current text is correct
RS-FEC superframe (L × 1800 × u symbols)

The training frame is always 7200 symbols
. There is no need to state it here since it is claer from figures 191-15 and 191-16

286

van Dyck, Peter

Infineon

191

191.3.2.2

Figure 191-12: For 2.5G and 5G, a RS-FEC superframe always has L x 3600 PAM2 symbols. A Training frame always has 7200 PAM2 symbols. The training frame symbols match the data path symbols for a case with L=2

Replace:

RS-FEC superframe (L × 1800 × u symbols)

With:

RS-FEC superframe (L × 3600 symbols) / Training Frame (7200 symbols)

Replace:

For PAM2 path, V=2 and u=2

With:

For RS-FEC Frame u=1. For Training Frame u=2.

Replace:

PAMVu x 1800-1

With:

PAM2u x 3600-1

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

287

van Dyck, Peter

Infineon

191

191.3.2.2

Figure 191-13: Same as comment for Figure 191-11

Replace:

For PAM2 path, V=2 and u=2

With:

For PAM2 path, V=2 and u=4

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

288

van Dyck, Peter

Infineon

191

191.3.2.2

Figure 191-14: Same as comment for Figure 191-12

Replace:

For PAM2 path, V=2 and u=2. For PAM4 path, V=4 and u=1.

With:

For RS-FEC Frame u=1. For Training Frame u=2.

Replace:

rx_PAMVn+(u x 1800-1)

With:

rx_PAM2n+(u x 3600-1)

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

113

Lo, Willliam

Axonne Inc.

191

191.5.2.5.4

115

Various capabilities are defined but not mapped to a register.

The InterleaverDepth request is set in bits 1.2311.12:11.

The received InterleaverDepth request is reported in bit 1.2312.12:11 of the link partner.

When bit 1.2311.5 is set to 1, the PrecodeSel request is set in bits 1.2311.3:2, otherwise the PHY determines the precoder setting. The actual setting transmitted is reflected in bit 1.2310.4:3.

The received PrecodeSel request is reported in bit 1.2312.3:2 of the link partner

The OAMen is advertised in bit 1.2311.1.

The advertised status is reported in bit 1.2312.1 of the link partner.

The VendorSpecificData to send is set via bits 1.2316:15:0 and received on the link partner bits 1.2317:15:0.

PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.

Add new paragraph on P115L47

The InterleaverDepth request the PHY sends to its link parter is bits 1.2311:12:11 (see 45.2.1.244.1). The InterleaverDepth request reported by the link partner is bits 1.2312:12:11 (see 45.2.1.245.1).

When bit 1.2311.5 (see 45.2.1.244.2) is set to one, the PrecodeSel request is set in bits 1.2311.3:2 (see 45.2.1.244.4); otherwise, the PHY determines the precoder setting. The actual setting transmitted is reflected in bit 1.2310.4:3 (see 45.2.1.243.5).

The received PrecodeSel request is reported in bit 1.2312.3:2 (see 45.2.1.245.3) by the link partner.

Incomplete implementation
1.2311.1 and 1.2317.15:0 not implemented

Muma, Scott

Microchip

191

191.5.2.6

116

The literal number would be more clear than an equation in this table

Change 20 - 0.384 to 19.616

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

Task force to discuss
I think the intent is to show a relatioship between the 20 and 0.384. Merging this into one number may mess with this intent.

Muma, Scott

Microchip

191

191.5.2.6

117

The literal number would be more clear than an equation in this table

Change 20 - 0.384 to 19.616

PROPOSED ACCEPT.

Task force to discuss
I think the intent is to show a relatioship between the 20 and 0.384. Merging this into one number may mess with this intent.

Thanks,

William

From: Natalie Wienckowski <natalie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 2:40 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_ISAAC] IEEE P802p3dm D2p0 proposed responses available on website

Dear colleagues,

Proposed responses for all 519 comments received, including the 25 late comments, have been loaded to our website.

You will find a pdf sorted by clause/subclause, an Excel file sorted by page/line, and an EZ bucket pdf. The EZ bucket includes comments that were received late and deemed EZ. Please note - some comments are marked as "WITHDRAWN" as I received an email from the commenter that they would like to withdraw their comment.

Please send all requests to remove comments from the EZ bucket by July 5th AOE.

Agenda for July 9th call:

Motion to include "late" comments.

Confirmation of comments to remove from the EZ bucket.

Motion to approve remaining comments in the EZ bucket.

Review of comments that may need consensus prior to the Plenary.

Comment resolution of requested comments.

General comment resolution.

If there are specific comments you would like to review during this meeting because you won't be at the Plenary or will be in other TF meetings, please let me know and we can look at these on July 9th.

I also uploaded additional files to support comments. These can be found on the July Plenary meeting page.

Thanks,

Natalie Wienckowski

In-Vehicle Networking Solutions LLC

IEEE P802.3dm Chair and Chief Editor

natalie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1