Hi Peter,
Good to hear from you, to know you are well, and to know you will be participating with us in this upcoming meeting.
My responses to each issue will be below, but please realize I am just one person and we can freely discuss these things in the meeting.
Wayne
From: Peter Fischer <p.fischer@xxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 3:47 AM
To: STDS-802-3-SPEP2P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_SPEP2P] AW: 802.3dg at May interim
Dear Wayne
Thanks a lot for preparing your motion presentation. In my point of view there are already many good proposals. I would like to make some suggestions for small changes of your motions which would help us to have even
a better decision. Here are my proposals:
- Slide 3: Can we adjust the question to ‘The dg link segment spec shall contain a TCL requirement for unscreened links’? If you agreed, can we make this improvement
for all questions related to TCL and ELTCTL?
My view is that both screened and unscreened links should be required to meet the TCL and ELTCTL requirements. I’m not sure anyone will make an unscreened link that meets the AXT requirements unless its in an unbundled
situation.
- Slide 5: Can you adjust the frequency range to what we have agreed on IL recently? That would be 0.1 to 60MHz.
It is friendly to me to have all the f ranges start at 0.1 MHz. I will send an updated contribution with this change.
- Slide 5: Can you add a graph showing the impact of the two proposed limits with comparison with what we have in IEEE 802.3cg? Is this for E1, E2 or E3?
Graph will be included in the revised contribution. I think this information is available in old ones but I will add it for convenience.
- Slide 6: It is somehow not understandable for me what the difference is between the proposals as both are 50-20log(f/10). Is there a typo?
Yes that is a typo. The second one was supposed to be 40-20log(f/10) to match the second proposal in the straw poll in the previous slide. This will be corrected in the update.
- Slide 7: Can you put aside the current requirement for RL, so we can see easily what the effect of the proposed change would be?
Sorry for this trouble, I had forgotten we already had an agreement on return loss. This motion will be deleted.
- Slide 7: Can you add a graph showing the impact of the proposal compared with the existing limit and the IEEE 802.3cg limit? Is this for E1, E2 or E3?
No, will delete the motion.
- Slide 7: Can you adjust the frequency range to what we have agreed on IL recently? That would be 0.1 to 60MHz.
No, will delete the motion.
- Slide 8: Is this for E1, E2 or E3?
For all three.
- Slide 9: Can you add a graph showing the impact of the proposal compared with the IEEE 802.3cg limit? Is this for E1, E2 or E3?
Yes, will include in the update.
- Slide 9: Can you adjust the frequency range to what we have agreed on IL recently? That would be 0.1 to 60MHz.
Yes.
- Slide 11: Would it be possible to align with existing PoDL classes? That would be 25 Ohm.
This proposal is based on the expected DC resistance of the cable that is expected to be used. These lower resistance values would support existing PoDL applications. I’m not too stuck, but this is what I would propose.
We can listen to the views of others.
To cover mode conversion for screened links I prepare a presentation with proposed limits for coupling attenuation.
Best regards
Von: Wayne Larsen <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Mai 2023 16:23
An: STDS-802-3-SPEP2P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [802.3_SPEP2P] 802.3dg at May interim
Hi,
I intend to make motions at the May 17 meeting of dg concerning the link segment specifications.
Wayne Larsen CommScope
From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 12:23 PM
To: STDS-802-3-SPEP2P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_SPEP2P] 802.3dg at May interim
All – since I haven’t received any requests for an ad hoc, it appears that our next meeting will be at the interim.
I am requesting that you let me know of presentation requests by MONDAY next week, rather than the usual “Thursday before the meeting” because I will be unavailable from Thursday through Sunday (when I leave for the interim).
You can still get me the presentation by Monday morning of the interim week.
In order to make progress (even in July) we need some substantitive discussion of PHYs at the interim. I would characterize the discussion we have had to date as ‘preliminary’. It has been useful in validating bandwidth needs (which was
what was needed) but not really at the level of detail that produces good baseline progress.
We have discussed getting contributions regarding impulse (and other nonstationary) noise sources in our expected operational environments. These will help PHY progress.
PHY discussions will need to get beyond just PAM levels and FEC gain, and start considering PCS structure, latency, and encoding. Note that these will be key in evaluating impulse noise performance and that will take time.
Experience from 10BASE-T1L in the field would also be welcome.
And, of course, we should also discuss how we expect powering to be handled.
Additional contributions, of course, are welcome – these are just suggestions to help get us towards baselines.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
310-920-3860
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
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