Re: [802.3_ISAAC] Discussion on comment #500

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

My concern is e.g. 191.5.2.4.4 Message Field:

All possible Message Field settings are listed in Table 191–5 for the LEADER and Table 191–6 for the

FOLLOWER. Any other value shall not be transmitted and shall be ignored at the receiver. The Message

Field setting for the first transmitted PMA frame shall be the first row of Table 191–5 for the LEADER and

the first or second row of Table 191–6 for the FOLLOWER. Moreover, for a given Message Field setting,

the next Message Field setting shall be the same Message Field setting or the Message Field setting

corresponding to a row below the current setting. When loc_rcvr_status = OK the Infofield variable is set to

loc_rcvr_status<5> = 1 and set to 0 otherwise.

To me that reads like any other Message Field (to me it is the whole row), is not permitted. That means a row where timing_lock_OK or loc_rcvr_status goes back to 0 is not possible.
Although I understand that loc_rcvr_status field is defined the same as your proposal for timint_lock_OK.

Thanks,

Peter

From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 10:56 AM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] Discussion on comment #500

Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Please be cautious when sharing information or opening attachments especially from unknown senders. Refer to our intranet guide to help you identify Phishing email.

Yes, it isn’t an assumption – it is behavior. Timing lock can be lost after it has been required, and if it is, the bit flips from 1 to 0 (and hopefully back to 1 when it is reacquired again).

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

From: Peter vanDyck <00005eed8bd3e774-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 1:49 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] Discussion on comment #500

Hi George,

is the assumption that timing_lock_OK could be lost after a “1” has already been transmitted to the link partner, and that loss would be transmitted again through the infofield? It’s not clear to me from the “is set to zero otherwise”.

Thanks,

Peter

From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 10:34 AM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] Discussion on comment #500

Ragnar – I was struggling with precise words for the implementation-specific nature of determining whether the follower was tracking... If you can provide some, I would be grateful.

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

From: Ragnar Jonsson <ragnar.jonsson@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 1:17 PM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] Discussion on comment #500

I agree with George's comment. I would expect the initial condition to be 0 (FALSE), and then transition to 1 (TRUE) when the follower has acquired the timing lock. Therefore it is more appropriate to talk about setting timing_lock_OK=1 when timing lock has been acquired and set to 0 otherwize. There should also be a statement about the implementation of the timing_lock_OK condition is implementation specific.

Ragnar

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 8:18 AM George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

William – I would rather suggest that we define the bit in the positive sense. Otherwise, if the FOLLOWER never acquires the timing reference, under your definition, timing_lock_OK would be set to 1, because you can’t lose what you never have. This is, however, not what I think we want. Also, style manual says you spell out zero & one, and I believe we have another comment to not put LEADER and FOLLOWER in all caps…

Insert text in 191.5.2.6 (page 116) after line 28.

The timing_lock_OK bit transmitted by the Follower in the infofield to indicate whether the Follower is currently tracking the Leader’s timing reference. This indicator bit is set to one to indicate that a Follower is tracking the Leader’s timing reference and is set to zero otherwise.

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 13, 2026 11:05 AM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_ISAAC] Discussion on comment #500

All,

I took an action to get some wording to define timing_lock_OK.

Insert text in 191.5.2.6 (page 116) after line 28.

Whenever a FOLLOWER loses the LEADER's timing reference it sets timing_lock_OK=0, which is communicated to the link partner via the InfoField. Otherwise, timing_lock_OK is set to 1.

Thanks,

William

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

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

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