| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Stay tuned – draft should be out tomorrow, just doing some final cleanup with the editorial team. George Zimmerman Principal, CME Consulting Experts in Advanced
PHYsical Communications Technology george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 310-920-3860 (PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS.
THE OTHER WILL STILL WORK, BUT PLEASE USE THIS FOR CME BUSINESS) From: Belopolsky,
Yakov [mailto:ybelopolsky@xxxxxxxxxxx] We are getting close to the IEEE Plenary session in Berlin
Is the draft 1.2 available ?
Yakov Belopolsky Manager R&D Stewart Connector | a beL group tel direct: 717-227-7837 , reception: 717-235-7512
email:
ybelopolsky@xxxxxxxxxxx 11118 Susquehanna Trail South Glen Rock PA 17327 USA stewartconnector.com From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
bq / 25GBASE-T interested –
First, let me say that I believe we are in good shape in the draft, going forward to technical completeness, but we’re not there yet. We expect that the next
task force review draft will be out next week sometime. During the review cycle, I plan to bring the PHY ad hoc out of hibernation for a meeting to review several points in the draft, hopefully to spur some commenters to provide input and build consensus
ahead of time. Getting an acceptable framework for the CMNR test into the 802.3bq draft is, at least for me, one of the holes we have to reaching “technical completeness”
– note there is no ‘one judge’, this is just my opinion. I would encourage the working parties to accept a strawman and propose it through comments on the 1.2 draft. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but it has to be something that we can fix through comments. Once we move to the working group ballot stage, the scope of commenting will close down to only those items commented on in the previous round, so I wouldn’t
want to move into that process without a consensus strawman in place. There are points in the draft, and I plan to review with the ad hoc where there are editor’s notes asking for PHY vendors to consider issues, and see if we’re
OK with them as is (in which case, I will submit comments as editor to delete the editors’ notes), or if someone is concerned, they will then know to submit a comment with an alternative proposal. You can get a head start on this process by looking through
Draft 1.1.1 for the word “consider” in and editor’s note, and for the term “Ed Note”, which marks a few. There aren’t many of these things and some were resolved in the last comment cycle, but it is important we have people look at them. Chief among them
are: -
The disposition of the common mode noise rejection spec and test -
Whether the transmitter linearity specification is still the right one (reminder from 10GBASE-T days, while in practice the echo canceller may drive
this spec, in this document, we are concerned with interoperability considerations, and hence are specifying the linearity required for reception in the absence of echo) -
Fast retrain, which is currently optional, and -
The lowest frequency to consider for link delay. Management and autoneg bits are also flagged, but, in my opinion, the functionality is there, I’m flagging that the bits may need to be adjusted when we add
25GBASE-T (and dependent on how NGEABT evolves) – if necessary, we will get a chance at this later during WG ballot, specifically because it relates to 25GBASE-T inclusion. George Zimmerman Principal, CME Consulting Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications Technology george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 310-920-3860 |