| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hello Dave, George, I'd like to comment as well on the proposed response to my comments #72 and ’73, and also #34 (not my comment). #72 Cabling media choices depend mainly on Frequency range and Signal to Noise Ratio. As the requirements are different between 25GBASE-T and 40GBASE-T, I believe it would aid the reader if we offer 2 tables calling out the different options. We do the same in 802.3bz, Table 126-18 2.5GBASE-T and 126-19 for 5GBASE-T and it would be consistent to align both documents. #73 I would like to clarify my comment that I did not intent to ask for addition of 100m of Class FA, but only 30m of ClassFA. ISO11801 defines a range of channel length including 30m. If we reference “up to 30m Class FA” I believe we are covered. In practice, cabling length is one of the best documented parameters in relation to cabling and should be available to every end user. I hope this makes my comment more clear. #34 I also noticed your proposal on comment #34 and as Editor of ISO11801-9905 I would like to offer the following: It is the mandate of TR11801-9905 to ensure the specifications of 802.3 link segment and the requirements of 25GBASE-T are met. For your information, current working papers of the working group do specify an enhanced Class FA spec to meet 25BASE-T. There is discussion around adding other cabling classes which has not found consensus so far. For the purpose of #34 which is about Category 7A/Class FA only, I believe you should assume that ISO11801-9905 will meet the link segment specifications of 802.3bq. Please also note that ISO11801-9904 and ISO11801-9905 as ISO/IEC documents both wait for their first Working Draft (1st WD). In terms of referencing they should be treated equally. Hope this helps. Best regards, Martin From: Brillhart, Theodore [mailto:Theodore.Brillhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Adding the reflector for everyone’s benefit. -TB From: Brillhart, Theodore Hello Dave, George, I'd like to comment on the proposed response to my comment #55. I would completely agree with the proposed response if my comment were specifying any requirements for cabling that weren’t already in the annex. However what I propose with this comment is to simply translate the values for CM Vpp and DM Vpp that are listed in the table now, into their equivalent TCL values (i.e. TCL = 20Log10(CM/DM)). The cabling in this test set-up is the only significant source of mode conversion and can be pre-tested to aid the user in setting up the experiment effectively the first time. No need to set the entire thing up, calibrate the clamp, take multiple measurements at the baluns only to find the CM/DM voltage requirements have not been met, toss out the cabling, and start over. I’m very sorry if my comment did not make this clear to begin with. No new requirements. -Theo From: Chalupsky, David [mailto:david.chalupsky@xxxxxxxxx] Dear Colleagues, Proposed comment responses for P802.3bq D2.3 and P802.3bz D1.1 are now posted. For both projects our editorial team has created an “EZ Bucket” of comments that we intend to approve with a single motion (one for each project). Please review the EZ bucket files. If you would like your comment removed from the EZ bucket and discussed separately, please notify me and our Chief Editor, George Zimmerman. P802.3bq comments: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bq/comments/index.html P802.3bz comments: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/comments/index.html Many thanks to the reviewers and to our editorial team for providing proposed responses. Thanks, David Chalupsky Chair, IEEE P802.3bq 25G/40GBASE-T Task Force Chair, IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Task Force |