Re: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

That’s taunting. 15 yard penalty.

From: Glen Kramer [mailto:000006d1020766de-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 7:31 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Motion #8 from New Orleans meeting in May 2017:

The upstream channel format of the asymmetric 25/10G ONU shall be identical to the upstream channel

format of the 25/25G ONU with the exception of line rate which shall be 10.3125 GBd.

Moved: Glen Kramer

Second: Wait for it …. Bill Powell !!!

For: 16 Against: 0 Abstain: 19

Technical (≥ 75%)

Motion Passed

-Glen

From: Bill Powell [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:29 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Duane,

To answer your question:

>Do you think we will need more gain that what is provided in the existing 10G RS FEC?

No

Regards,
Bill

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	RE: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2018 22:07:01 +0000
From:	Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Bill Powell <bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx>
CC:	Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>

Bill,

True, other than a resolution to adopt the same envelope structure we passed quite a while ago we haven’t talked about 10G US much. Do you think we will need more gain that what is provided in the existing 10G RS FEC?

Best Regards

Duane

From: Bill Powell [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:56 PM
To: Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Duane,
I would tend to agree, but it seems that we would need at least the equivalent optical gain from the 10G EPON RS FEC to meet the PR30 29 dB power budget. I don't recall that we've talked yet about how this would fit into an EQ-based MAC structure.

Regards,
Bill

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	RE: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2018 21:49:30 +0000
From:	Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Bill Powell <bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx>, Marek Hajduczenia <Marek.Hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:	STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>

Bill,

Personally I don’t think the 10G US will need that much of a boost. Hopefully we can reference much of the current spec for 10G US.

Best Regards

Duane

From: Bill Powell [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:40 PM
To: Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>; Marek Hajduczenia <Marek.Hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Duane, Marek,
Relative to the comments on Item 1 below, wouldn't the mandatory FEC function still be defined in CL 142 for the "802.3ca" 10G rate that could share the "first" 25G US wavelength in a TDM manner that we're defining as part of this standard? i.e. - not the standard 10G EPON rate or upstream wavelength.

Regards,
Bill

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Re: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56
Date:	Wed, 30 May 2018 14:46:18 -0600
From:	Marek Hajduczenia <mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:	mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx
To:	STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you, Duane

Item 1) will be fixed and it was clearly a mistake on my end.

As far as item 2) goes, this change will affect all new clauses as well – I think it would be better to have a comment on this topic against D1.1 to make sure it gets addressed correctly.

Marek

From: Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:40 PM
To: Marek Hajduczenia <mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Marek,

Only noticed two items of importance:

Pg 1/35 line 53 “Nx25G-EPONs using the nominal bit rate of 10, 25, or 25 Gb/s use a mandatory FEC function defined in Clause 142 in any direction.” Probably not for 10G and the 2^nd “25” should be “50” I suspect.

For Fig 56-5a pg 2/36 We should add a note to these figures that 10G US will not use 25GMII but 10GMII in US. Let me know if this needs to be a separate comment.

Best Regards

Duane

From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 10:29 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_NGEPON] Proposed set of changes to Clause 56

Dear colleagues,

Attached please find the proposed changes against Clause 56 to accommodate Nx25G-EPON in the EFM architecture. All changes to Clause 56 material (where needed) are tracked in terms of additions and deletion. Material that does not need to be modified is NOT included in this contribution.

I plan to submit a comment against draft D1.1 (once published) including this material as a contribution towards the draft. Please review and provide feedback. Your review is more than welcome.

regards

Marek

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGEPON list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGEPON&A=1