| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mike, Your deep dive into the subtleties is useful. You caught more of them than I did. Issue 1: number of solutions per data rate. The first two bulleted objective examples state a singular PHY. The second two bullets could be interpreted as singular or multiple because the word “specifications” is plural. Does that plurality mean multiple solutions or that even one solution has multiple specs? If
one solution per data rate were intended, this could be clarified by saying “Provide
a physical layer specification …” Issue 2: which data rate(s). This choice could affect the CSDs, depending on how they were written. I agree that this choice should be made by the SG. Issue 3: number of fiber pairs. This choice could affect the CSDs, depending on how the CSDs were written. For example, the CSDs could be written such that the merits of fewer pairs could be stated generically without the need to know the
number, or they could be written to describe applications that specific fewer-pair solutions would address. I’d prefer the former approach, so the pair counts get decided in TF phase. Issue 4: new FEC or not new FEC The case can be made to reuse the existing FEC, as you have begun. The case could also be made, for example, to eliminate FEC to address the low-latency market. I’d prefer to let this be decided in the SG
phase, but in doing so the CSDs would need to remain agnostic about the latency aspects of the applications.
Regarding the meeting timing assessment, I think the March/May relationship is correct. But I think the July/November one should instead be July/September. Regards, Paul From: Dudek, Mike [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx]
I think this brings up four different issues.
Beth had an interesting analysis about the study group timing for the 100G per lane group that I think would apply to this group as well. It shows that the study group either has to wrap up its work in March
(with the first task force meeting in May) or wait until July (with a first task force meeting in Nov). My suggestion is that we target July and try to make the hard decisions in Study Group (i.e. have the more specific objectives).
From: Lingle, Robert L (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Dear Colleagues, Happy New Year! Please consider several options for the form of objectives that will be produced by the Study Group for “Next-Gen 200 & 400 Gb/s PHYs over fewer MMF pairs than Existing Ethernet Projects & Standards.” These
differences arise from 1) different forms of objectives in recent projects plus 2) whether we should choose the number of fiber pairs for a speed in Study Group vs. Task Force. (I only included single-pair and even numbers of fiber pairs, since those are the
practical choices.) Historically we have not specified that a specific grade of MMF was required to meet the objective. I show a 400 Gb/s example below, but the options would apply to a 200Gb/s objective as well. Q. What are the pro’s and con’s of these options? Which do you prefer?
Let us have a healthy discussion in advance of the 1/11 telecon, so we can begin to write down draft objectives. Warm regards, Robert Robert Lingle, Jr., Ph.D. Director, OFS Systems & Technology Strategy
2000 Northeast Expy | Norcross, GA 30071 |