| Dear Takahashi-san,
Thank you for your answer.
Let me give you my feedback: - PMD proposal of https://www.ieee802.org/3/cz/public/3_aug_2021/swanson_3cz_02c_030821_AUTO_MDI_Baseline.pdf is consistent with other clauses in IEEE Std 802.3. You can read for example clauses 95 and 112 of IEEE Std 802.3-2018, or the clause 138 of 802.3cd-2018.
- Any PHY needs to be designed taking into account the fiber optic channel, and the characteristics of this channel depends on the launching condition and how the parameters and measurement methods are clearly defined. These characteristics as well as the test methods were defined in IEC in a multivendor agreement. As John Abbott explained in several contributions, "The performance of an optical link depends on complementary specifications on the laser source and the optical fiber, so that the optical fiber will work with any laser and the laser will work with any fiber. The complementary specifications were developed in 1999-2003 in a collaboration of manufacturers and end-users, including modeling and extensive experimentation/validation”
- This PMD proposal (OM3 + 980 VCSEL) leverages knowhow and technologies developed during the last 20 years. Therefore, as other PMD sublayers for laser-optimized fibers (e.g. OM3, 4, 5), it includes references to international standards where characteristics, launching conditions, and test methods are defined.
- Characteristics of the optical fiber are provided, e.g. diameters, optical attenuation, modal bandwidth, dispersion parameters, etc (see slide 10). IMO we need to point out IEC 60793-2-10 to know what these characteristics are and how they are measured.
- Characteristics of the optical fiber cannot be informative (nice to have). In such a case, the PHY characteristics cannot be mandatory, because the fiber can change. Therefore, we do not have a standard.
- Are you requesting to redefine characteristics of the fiber and test methods that are already defined in IEC? What would be value proposition for the end-user?
- I appreciate you elaborate your request with specific remedies and changes to the PMD baseline proposal.
Best regards,
CTO at KDPOF_____________________________________________________________
Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.A: Ronda de Poniente 14 2º CD, 28760, Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain P: +34 91 804 33 87 Ext:110 M: +34 689 319 866
Dear Ruben-san,
I have another reason to oppose the motion #3. Definition of the optical fiber category shall be left to the ISO. I think that the MDI chapter of IEEE 802.3cz only needs to specify the characteristics of the optical signal at the launch and output points of an optical fiber. The type of optical fiber may needs to be specifically determined in order to calculate the link budget, however, it can be described in the document as informative.
I would appreciate it if you would consider my idea.
Best regards, Satoshi
Dear Colleagues,
Today, in the 802.3cz Interim Meeting we have succeeded in the adoption of 4 baseline proposals (i.e. 50G PCS/PMA, EEE/LPI, Loopback modes, and BER test mode). However, the most important motion, the one to adopt a PMD failed and most of the negative voters did not provide any reason for explaining their vote, and what for me is more important, they did not indicate what should be changed in that PMD baseline proposal to be accepted by them.
Today we voted the only one PMD proposal presented until now that is technically complete, fulfills the 100% of the objectives and is 100% consistent with the CSD responses. The other PMD proposals (i.e. GIPOF and Si-Photonics) are not technically complete (at least today), and either do not fulfill none of the objectives or only some of them. I understand that someone can vote against option “A”, when he/she offers an option “B”, being both A and B complete and consistent with the objectives and CSD. However, I can't understand a negative vote against option A with nothing to offer (at least today) and with no arguments.
Which part of the motion text and referenced contributions should be changed, with proposed remedy, in order the motion being accepted? Should the PMD based on OM3 + 980nm VCSEL not be included in 802.3cz draft and the task force should wait until other PMD options are complete and meet (new) objectives? Why (technical reason)? Should we have also included the other PMD options in the motion, even if they are incomplete and inconsistent with objectives, going against CSD? Did the motion text or the referenced contribution prevent the adoption of future PMD options like GIPOF and Si-Photonics (provided the objectives and CSD are revised first)?
Therefore, I kindly ask the following individuals to provide arguments for supporting their negative vote against the motion #3 for PMD adoption of today. These arguments may be used to identify gaps in understanding the procedures and building consensus in the future.
- Tadashi Takahashi, Nitto Denko Corporation
- Kazuya Takayama, Nitto Denko Corporation
- Kenji Yonezawa, AGC
- Hidenari Hirase, AGC
- Yuji Watanabe, AGC
- Satoshi Takahashi, POF Promotion
- Ichiro Ogura, Petra
- Taiji Kondo, MegaChips
- Hideki Isono, Fujitsu Optical Components
- Kenneth Jackson, Sumitomo
Thank you and best regards,
Rubén Pérez-Aranda KDPOF
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
**************************************************** Satoshi TAKAHASHI POF Promotion 1-10-28-501 Kugenuma-Fujigaya, Fujisawa Phone: +81-80-5026-9433 Fax.: +81-466-50-5884 ****************************************************
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
|