| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Some thoughts in-line…. From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx] Dear Mehmet, Please see inline Marek From: Mehmet Tazebay [mailto:mtazebay@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Dear Marek, Thank you for your quick comments. Here is my response to some of the points that you’ve made 1. The objective (e) was intended to go with (g) but since we are considering to remove it then, we need to provide a cable reach for automotive environment and industrial environment (as suggested by Brad) 2. The dB requirement in (g) was intended to make it independent of the topology which is not clear at the moment. In principal, I agree that we should provide the distance goal. [mh0626] I’d think that both might be needed to make sure that the TF in the future knows what to measure the proposals against. [BB>] Reach should be sufficient given that this is a new PHY and there isn’t really a legacy channel model in .3. 3. (h) is a place holder for now. It was in the original text “faster than 1000BASE-T” but the proposed requirement is much faster. I expect to have some clarification after the wake-up requirement presentation in July-2012 plenary. Then, this goal will have proper wording. [mh0626] A number would be very welcome, to provide a clear target to measure the proposal against. Then you could skip discussions on faster or slower, since these are very relative terms. [BB>] Kirsten stated she would work to provide the SG with that information. 4. (i) was discussed yesterday. This is also a generic objective as the requirement on energy efficient operation is not clear yet. We need to have a discussion whether 802.3xx protocol will meet the requirement for RTPGE or not. [mh0626] You could make it into an optional objective and study details once the channel model is available and TF understands more on how PHY is going to operate. [BB>] We modified the wording to at least have the TF investigate energy efficiency. If 802.3az is viable, then it is likely the TF can consider it. There may be some issues relative to wake times, so it may require some modifications; hence, the desire to not tie energy efficiency directly to EEE (aka 802.3az). 5. There are currently different EMC requirements for different OEMS. In my humble opinion, we need to see a unified requirement which, I believe, is being collected to be presented to the study group. Therefore, I’d like to keep this under discussion. Many thanks for your inputs. Regards, -Mehmet From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx] Dear Mehmet and colleagues, Even though I have not been attending the calls (sorry, overlap with other activities), I have some thoughts on the objectives, wording and what is still missing. I attach the file with some embedded comments. Hope that helps Regards Marek From: Mehmet Tazebay [mailto:mtazebay@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation to yesterday’s Telco. It was very productive with lots of good discussion. Please find the attached RTPGE preliminary objectives with the group’s feedback. I welcome the inputs and further discussions on the reflector. Regards, -Mehmet |