Dear Lokesh
Thank you for reviewing the draft D2.1 and submitting your comments.
The “Proposed Reject” status for these comments stems simply from the fact that you did not provide any clarification as to why you suggest that to be done or what the value of the change would be. During the draft balloting process, we typically try to minimize the changes to the ones that are necessary to move forward and produce the most readable content possible.
My only concern with the changes is modification of the names of legacy registers already existing in IEEE Std 802.3-2018. Time permitting today, we can discuss this in some detail, but we have close to 80 comments to go through and just 3 hours to do it. I suspect we will need an interim meeting to finish them.
For the future reference, please, do add a clarification similar to what you presented in the email below – it does help understand what the value of the change is and why the change is being requested. Additionally, rather than submitting 20+ comments on the very same change scattered across Clause 45, it would help to have a single comment with justification and just affected locations listed in the comment. It makes the processing much simpler for me, and easier for others to read and examine.
Thank you
Marek
From: Lokesh Kabra <Lokesh.Kabra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:23 PM
To: Steve.Gorshe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: STDS-802-3-ITSA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: IEEE P802.3cx meeting materials posted
Steve, Mareck,
I was going through the proposed responses and I see a bunch of my comments as “proposed reject” with the comment that the value of the changes is not clear.
Let me elaborate on my thinking behind these suggestions.
The existing table in 802.3 lists the following.
These do not differentiate between the Maximum & Minimum path delay registers but group them together
The 802.3cx D2.1 proposes to add the following rows which is not consistent with existing listing because the max & min registers are listed separately.
However, the new registers are only extensions of the existing “TimeSync path delay” with an additional sub-ns (or fractional ns) field. Moreover, these registers are considered as a register group or set with “TimeSync path delay” value and described in common section. For example
This case is very similar to the data types defined in say, IEEE 1588.
Hence my proposal is to give consistent names to the register set and differentiate it based on the resolution of the time value.
Register Address | Register name | Sub-Clause |
1.1801 through 1.1804 | TimeSync PMA/PMD transmit path data delay in ns | 45.2.1.176 |
1.1805 through 1.1808 | TimeSync PMA/PMD receive path data delay in ns | 45.2.1.177 |
1.1809 through 1.1810 | TimeSync PMA/PMD transmit path data delay in sub-ns | 45.2.1.176 |
1.1811 through 1.1812 | TimeSync PMA/PMD receive path data delay in sub-ns | 45.2.1.177 |
This will help to make it clear that these registers belong to 1 group and contain the same variable/field (e.g transmit path delay) but just gives values in ns and sub-ns respectively.
Similarly, my below proposal to rename the register fields in Table 45-140 has the same reasons.
802.3cx2.1 proposed to make the following changes.
My proposal was to make it consistent as below. For example, the table will look like following for “Max Transmit path delay”
Bit(s) | Name | Description | |
1.1801.15:0 | Maximum PMA/PMD transmit path data delay in ns, lower | PMA/PMD_delay_ns_Tx_max[15:0] | |
1.1802.15:0 | Maximum PMA/PMD transmit path data delay in ns, upper | PMA/PMD_delay_ns_Tx_max[31:16] | |
1.1809.15:0 | Maximum PMA/PMD transmit path data delay in sub-ns | PMA/PMD_delay_subns_Tx_max[15:0] | |
And so on..
In my opinion, this brings consistency to the register/field naming and clarity to the differences (“ns” and “subns” fields of the same variable).
I hope, this will clarify the intent behind my proposed changes.
Regards,
Lokesh
From: Steve Gorshe <0000115ee8839ca6-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 08 January 2022 02:34
To: STDS-802-3-ITSA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_ITSA] IEEE P802.3cx meeting materials posted
Dear IEEE P802.3cx ITSA Participants:
The draft agenda and all the meeting documents are now posted. We had 181 comments on D2.1, so please take some time to look through them and the proposed resolutions, especially for any comments you may have submitted. Note that we have a contribution proposing a revision to the P802.3cx Objectives.
Thanks and looking forward to seeing many of you on-line during our meeting next Wednesday.
Best regards,
Steve Gorshe
Chair – IEEE P802.3cx ITSA Task Force
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ITSA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ITSA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ITSA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ITSA&A=1