Re: [802.3_NGBASET] P802.3bq and P802.3bz - Discussion of comments, Annex 113A

["Moffitt, Bryan" <BMoffitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is the presentation associated with Sandbox comment 210. Besides the calibration options outlined, it also promotes a somewhat less detailed orientation for specifications, since many of the newest proposals (especially for .bq application) have yet to be proven in or agreed to.
Regards,
Bryan Moffitt
CommScope Systems Engineering
________________________________________
From: Cibula, Peter R [peter.r.cibula@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 3:12 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] P802.3bq and P802.3bz - Discussion of comments, Annex 113A

Dear Colleagues,

Attached please find two documents related to the work of the ad hoc for your review and further discussion.


·         The first is a comment sandbox workbook that is a transcription and sort of both .bq and .bz cable clamp comments.  The intent of this document is to allow us to summarize discussion of comments as we work to resolution.


·         The second is an updated version of our working Word document from July that includes updates summarized in the sandbox.  Changes are tracked, so you can view the original (starting text from P802.3bq D2.2) and the present version, which includes updated text based on our work so far.  I also included a few speculative changes based on my general understanding of the consensus of ad hoc participants and in the spirit of “implementing necessary changes.”

There are 39 total comments and, after updating to what I’ve noted in the sandbox, I believe we have 16 to address, 12 of which have not been discussed as they are fairly recent comments received against P802.3bz D1.0.
Please use this thread to continue our ad hoc discussion of these comments.
I’ll update the sandbox at the end of Saturday and Sunday.

Please see the FYI below for more information on the sandbox and the background associated with changes that you’ll see in the v0p7 ad hoc markup document.

Thanks again for your active participation as we complete our work on Annex 113A!
I look forward to seeing many of you at the Interim.

Best regards,
Pete Cibula
P802.3bq Rx CMNR ad hoc Chair

===================================================================
Some notes on the sandbox workbook FYI –

Having played in the sandbox for a little while, I would suggest the following plan of attack:

·          Interested participants confirm/deny the “green” and “red” comments and then consider the 16 “grey” areas.

·         Of those 16, I believe that 4 are close to being resolved – two are related to the directional coupler and are more checking the proposed text, one is general and should be addressed by other comments, and the last is related to how the Annex is used  wherein the “calling” specs define specific bandwidths – the essential question is how many times do we need to reinforce the statement that already exists in Annex 113A.1)

o   Having heard general agreement on the use of the directional coupler, I may take the initiative to complete the work on those two (updating text) and distribute a v0p8 ad hoc markup sometime whiel in transit tomorrow.

A few notes on the workbook:

·         3 worksheets – the 1st one is the main working document, the 2nd and 3rd are the “source” worksheets for .bq  and .bz comments (the transcriptions)

o   Please check your comments for accurate transcription

o   Please accept my apologies for any transcription errors that you may find in your comment and please notify me if any changes are needed.  I intend to post this to the ad hoc area when we are done with our work.

·         Some notes on the columns:

o   Series – The original sort order, colored with my swag at the status of the comment.

§  Green = suggest accept

§  Red = suggest reject (or related to another comment)

§  Grey = for discussion

o   Standard – Source of the comment, .bq or .bz

o   Comment # - Comment number in the .bq or .bz comment database

o   Category – All “Clamp Test”

o   Element – A rough bucketing of the test setup element related to the comment.  Things like balun, directional coupler, equipment bandwidth, etc.

o   Ad hoc consensus – A brief summary of the discussion from the September 2nd and September 10th ad hoc meetings.

o   Changed in Annex 113A v0p7? – An indication if there is an associated change in the working document Annex 113A v0p7

o   Comment – The comment from the comment database

o   Suggested Remedy (References are to P802.3bq D2.2 line numbers) – The suggested remedy.  Some comments included page numbers that have been referenced to Annex113A in P802.3bq D2.2.

o   Commenter – The originator of the comment

o   Type – Type from the comment database

o   Comment Status – Status from the comment database

o   Clause – Referenced clause

o   Subclause – Referenced subclause

o   .bq D2p2 Page – Page in .bq

o   .bq D2p2 Line – Line in .bq

o   Response Status - Status from the comment database

o   Proposed Response – From the comment database

o   Proposed Action – Any action from the proposed response from the comment database

·         Colored text is used to provide some context – green is for comments generally agreed upon and that are generally closed, blue is the ad hoc chair’s take on the general direction we would head in ad hoc discussion, deep orange is for open discussion, and red is used for emphasis.


From: Cibula, Peter R
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:50 AM
To: Cibula, Peter R; STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_NGBASET] P802.3bq and P802.3bz - Discussion of comments, Annex 113A

Dear Colleagues,

In addition to the material referenced below, please refer to the attached comments from P802.3bz_D1.0, provided by George Zimmerman.

When discussing comments, please identify them as
“.bz Comment xyz”
“.bq Comment abc”

Best regards,
~Pete

From: Cibula, Peter R [mailto:peter.r.cibula@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:04 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_NGBASET] P802.3bq and P802.3bz - Discussion of comments, Annex 113A

Dear Colleagues,

As recently announced, I would like to start a thread on the reflector that will facilitate further ad hoc work on comments received against Annex 113A as needed in advance of next week’s P802.3bq Task Force meeting.

As a starting point, interested participants are asked to please refer to materials from the September 2nd Rx CMNR ad hoc meeting, posted in the P802.3bq public area.

·         Comment summary as of September 2nd - “P802.3bq D2.2 Comments – Annex 113A<http://www.ieee802.org/3/bq/public/rxcmr/802d3bq_D2p2_ClampTest_CommentID.pdf>”.

·         Comments against Annex113A from Larry Cohen (Thank you for your work, Larry!) “Annex 113A Comments for P802.3bq<http://www.ieee802.org/3/bq/public/rxcmr/Annex_113A_comments_for_802.3bq.pdf>.”

·         September 2nd Meeting minutes<http://www.ieee802.org/3/bq/public/rxcmr/2015_September2nd_Rx_CMNR_Ad_Hoc_Meeting_Minutes.pdf>



Discussion from last week’s meeting are copied here as a starting point for ongoing discussion as needed.



·         Comment #135:

(1)    Participants agreed with the proposed response to this Editorial comment.



·         Comment #136:

(1)    The intent of the comment is allow test practitioners some flexibility in the hardware and techniques used to measure induced common-mode and differential-mode signals during the validation phase of the cable clamp test setup.  Participants agreed that providing this flexibility is helpful and that the proposed text is an excellent starting point and needs only relatively small changes (formatting/identification of “Note 1” and “Note 2”).

(2)    During discussion, it was noted changing the lower specification limit to 30MHz, while aligned with P802.3bz ENUCA ad hoc discussions related to Clause 126.5.4.3, has the potential to obviate a more general application of Annex 113A to other cable clamp tests.  Participants were reminded that the intent of defining a 1MHz to 2GHz range for equipment used in the cable clamp test setup is allow the “calling” specification to use such bandwidth as needed for a particular specification.  Participants agreed to review the text in “Annex 113A.1 Overview” and to develop appropriate text to include in the overview to clarify and/or emphasize that the equipment bandwidth defined in Annex 113A intentionally may exceed the range defined in any normative text that references Annex 113A.

(a)    Assuming that the lower frequency range of Annex 113A will remain at 1MHz, the lower frequency ranges of proposed updates to the balun specifications will be updated to align with the 1MHz limit or lower range of the target baluns, whichever is greater.



·         Comments related to modifying the text to reflect the test frequency sweep range, which in general suggested increasing the lower frequency range from 1MHz up to 30MHz, should be addressed by clarifying that the “calling” normative specification defines the limits to be used for a specific PHY rate.



·         Comment #140:

(1)    The comment proposes modifying the measurement setup used in 113A.3 Cable Clamp Validation to allow better characterization of the signal injected at the clamp input.  Inserting a directional coupler between the signal generator and the clamp input, and replacing the “Signal Sensor” with a 50 ohm termination would allow better characterization of the injected signal power level, harmonic distortion, and envelope rise/fall time.

(2)    Participants asked to see a comparison between signal measurements made using the existing configuration and the proposed modification to better understand the advantages of the proposed change.

(3)    Details of the proposed modification to the test setup may be found on Page 3 of “Annex 113A Comments for P802.3bq<http://www.ieee802.org/3/bq/public/rxcmr/Annex_113A_comments_for_802.3bq.pdf>.”  (Note – this document provides additional background information on several other comments discussed in these minutes.)



·         Comment #189:

(1)    The comment proposes removing the suggested compensation for unloaded clamp losses.  During discussion, participants noted that the intent of this  were alerted to the fact that there are several instances where normative language has been used in the Annex, and these should be reviewed and updated with text that is more appropriated for an informative portion of the specification.



(a)    As an example, the text for Note 1 currently reads as

“NOTE 1 —Prior to making validation measurements or performing the test described in 113A.4, the cable clamp should be tested without the cable inserted to determine the variation of the signal generator voltage with frequency at the output of the clamp. The signal generator output should be adjusted to the specified signal power (for example 6 dBm for 40GBASE-T) at 20 MHz on the signal sensor. When the frequency is varied from 1 MHz to 2000 MHz, the measured power should not vary more than ±10 %. If the measured power varies more than ±10%, then a correction factor must be applied at each measurement frequency.”



Participants were reminded that the intent of this calibration process is to parallel the “field calibration with no EUT in place” procedure defined in IEC 61000-4-3, 6.2  “Calibration of field” so that a constant source power reference is established over the test frequency range before validating the setup and performing the test.  Participants were asked to consider if an alternate remedy that removes the restrictive language would be an acceptable alternative.



In this case the text “…then a correction factor must be applied at each measurement frequency.” would be changed to “…then a correction factor may be applied at each measurement frequency.”



Thank you in advance for your participation as we work to address these comments in a constructive and productive manner!


Best regards,
Pete Cibula
P802.3bq Rx CMNR ad hoc Chair

Attachment: Moffitt_1bz_0915_CalibrationProposals.pdf
Description: Moffitt_1bz_0915_CalibrationProposals.pdf