| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dieter – please send me any specific corrections or additions to the minutes that you feel are necessary. We will consider them prior to approving minutes. Regarding time and content, we exhausted our allotted time on each of the last 2 meetings. We expect to have more time to continue to discuss the long-term proposal, so exhausting time in one meeting is not another. The minutes reflect
an encouragement to continue discussion on the reflector, which I am happy to see you are doing. What I, as an individual, would like to see is discussion that relates directly to how the CSDs are supported. I would read the ‘arguments against’ as more of
a discussion of what individuals in the group believe is needed in order to say that we have supported the CSDs and in order to have a record that supports those CSDs to 802.3 and the 802 EC. As an individual, I would note that we have not seen technical or economic feasibility presentations from those affiliated with the electronics or systems level vendors, and that is generally needed to support the CSDs of technical and
economic feasibility. When 100m is mentioned, the distinct identity point generally goes to 1 pair vs. 4 pairs, or whether (and how, you give some indication below) a 100m phy at 1 Gbps would have a distinct identity from the specified “link segment B” (40m)
of 1000BASE-T1. In this case, it is my personal belief that the distinct identity/technical and economic feasibility are linked in the targeted markets, so they need common assumptions. That was why I asked for more discussion on gauge and other characteristics (e.g., frequency and crosstalk) associated with the 100m cabling application you were stating (for example – is it 100m cabling per ISO/IEC 11801-1 Amd 1 T1A-100,
or is it T1B-100?, or something else). It is not uncommon to include the category of cabling in the phy reach objective, especially when there is a relevant cabling standard. We should have plenty of time for additional discussion, but I believe that we will be best served . Your email below raises several questions on suggested objectives for a new project:
I’d also offer that the ‘do not preclude higher bit rate developments’ is not a well formed objective. Unless a higher bit rate phy were defined, I wouldn’t know how to evaluate that we did that. I’m a pretty imaginative guy. I can almost
always come up with a way to do higher bit rates, but they need to be constrained by market needs. And, there is an inherent tension here between supporting futures and meeting the economic and technical needs of the existing broad market potential. If here
is something specific you had in mind we should say what it is and discuss it. I hope this helps. At this point, I am gathering this as input for the follow on study group discussion. As I said, we will have more time to discuss it. And please, (once more with my chair hat on) – if you have corrections to the minutes, please send then them to me. -george From: stds-802-3-spep2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <stds-802-3-spep2p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Dieter Schicketanz
The discussion is focusing now on 1Gbit/s. That is just a small part of the issue, the rest is unfortunately neglected. Till now, there are a lot
of applications for single pair Ethernet, but all are islands serving specific markets without considering that there are other markets that could be served with a more general approach.
None of them are suited in building communication and automation, where 100m links had been the incredible success story in the past. For this huge
market scalable and autosensing equipment’s are needed including remote powering. In this market precabling is essential and the speed of the communication does not need to be known in advance. The 100m links are specified and nearly ready in ISO/IEC 11801-1
amendment1 including IEC cables and connectors.
The title of the study group is:
Enhancements to Point-to-Point Single Pair Ethernet, and the proposal to have an addition to the 100 Mb/s industrial to develop a 100m link like in
802.3 cg with the major requests: - Define a link segment and Phy to support 10 / 100 and 1000 Mbit/s: - At least 100m link segment - Support auto negotiation - Support remote powering, auto negotiation optional with 10BASE-T if in conflict with remote powering. - Do not preclude future higher bit rate developments.
1)
1000Mbit/s is not needed:
a)
As no explanation was given it is irrelevant.
2)
The link should be better prepared:
a)
As it is the purpose of the proposal to develop the link, this is not understood.
3)
It would be better to do this part as a next step.
a)
This would delay serving this important market for at least 5 years with the danger for others to take advantage and to develop own systems.
4)
It was not presented sufficiently.
a)
This is not true, usually too less time was given to present and to discuss. As an example, we take the last meeting of June 23, where an agenda was agreed, but at the end for Matthias proposal
the discussion was very short and my presentation was not even mentioned. How can proposals be discussed if a lot of time is given to other items? The minutes do not represent the end of the meeting and needs to be corrected. Again, it is the right time to close the existing gaps between the islands to make SPE the next big story in wired ethernet history.
Dieter Schicketanz To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 |