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

Re: [802.3_10SPE] comment r02-14

Hi All,

Let me speak in favor of having MDI (meaning, a "mandatory referenced connector for the interoperability").

There may be more relevant examples, but here are a few examples I remember through out 36+ years, including through some 'connector wars'.  First, the justification.

MDI -- this is the primary electrical interoperability interface.   All the work to *ensure* interoperability has been done on the connector.   Besides ensuring that all MDI mates so that connectivity could be achieved, they also ensured non-experts-in-the-tech-segment to put together a system. 

MDIs that assumes significant non-obvious interoperability concern addressed:
These allowed for the industry to achieve multi-vendor interoperability without any further engineering in installations and maintenance.  <== This is the main point of MDI. 

MDIs that were justifiably left out of the PHY spec.
Don't be afraid of specifying MDI -- Market adoption of MDI and alternate connector to MDI.
So we *should* have MDI for 10BASE-T1L. 
we *should not* have MDI for the 10BASE-T1S in automotive and backplane.
we *should* have MDI for the 10BASE-T1S in industrial applications where the MDI is clearly exposed (therefore multi-vendor equipment mating would occur).

best regards,

Yong Kim, affiliation: NIO


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:00 AM Christopher T. Diminico <00000025925d7602-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Val, 

Thanks for the input. 

Please note the electromagnetic classifications are for the Link segment not the MDI (see Table 146–7—Link segment electromagnetic classifications (ISO/IEC 11801-1)). As you know, TIA and ISO are working on supporting specifications in which they will have ample opportunity to apply their expertise.  

IEEE 802.3 BASE-T standards specify the MDI electrical and mechanical performance and refer to applicable local and national codes for electromagnetic compatibility. The MDI is a compatibility interface at the Physical Medium interface (that is, the physical cable interface). BASE-T references external specifications for the mechanical interfaces as an example 10BASE-T  references IEC 60603-7:1990 for the MDI mechanical interface to the twisted-pair link segment. 

Regards, Chris





-----Original Message-----
From: Valerie Maguire <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: STDS-802-3-10SPE <STDS-802-3-10SPE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Aug 9, 2019 1:13 am
Subject: Re: [802.3_10SPE] comment r02-14

Dear Task Force Members,
 
Like Amrik, I also will not be able to attend the Milwaukee meeting, but feel very strongly about this issue. My primary concerns are that an MDI connector interface recommendation is not required to make our amendment technically complete and any MDI reference reintroduction is likely to cause more than just the one negative vote that the current state of having no IEC 63171 references at all has resulted in.
 
While I appreciate Amrik’s effort to build consensus by reverting back to the draft 3.0 (2 two connectors, no “E” restrictions) text, this is highly problematic for me. Specifically, a preference for the IEC 63171-1 connector or the IEC 63171-6 connector or any other connector to be used in all “E” environments has never been made in a peer reviewed manner. Neither experts at TIA and ISO/IEC nor within the IEEE 802.3 community have made such a determination based on an agreed-upon set of desired features and functionality. More problematic, the U.S., China, Mexico, and several other countries didn’t select either the -1 or the -6 connector as preferred in E1 environments. There simply isn’t clear consensus and we don’t have the technical input needed to make this recommendation today. Further, after listening carefully at the last meeting to the rationale that having to choose between two plug-and-play connectors is problematic for PHY developers, I don’t see how re-adopting this text is helpful. Finally, reverting back to this text introduces confusion as neither the -1 connector nor the -6 connector is especially suited for multidrop implementations.
 
The remedy to # r02-14, as suggested by the commenter, is highly problematic for the same reason (lack of a peer review based on an agreed-upon set of desired features and functionality) and likely to draw multiple negative votes from folks who prefer the -6 interface over the -1 interface for their implementation.
 
I believe that speedy publication of this amendment is best for adoption of single-pair Ethernet and believe that we are best served by focusing our efforts working content that is required to make the draft technically complete. I strongly recommend making no change to 146.8.1 or 147.9.1.
 
Thanks – Val
 
Valerie Maguire, BSEE
602-228-7943 mobile
 
www.siemon.com
 
From: Amrik Bains (ambains) <00000bd79f1f9304-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 3:41 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10SPE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_10SPE] comment r02-14
 
Hi Colleagues,
 
I will not be attending Milwaukee meeting, but wanted to suggest different remedy to comment r02-14 on clause 146.8.1/147.9.1  by  Christopher Diminico (Please see comment at the end of the email) which suggest to add IEC 63171-1 to 8023cg_D3dp2, but does not include IEC 63171-6.   
 
We have had long discussions, various proposals, straw polls, motions and have built consensus, but not fully satisfying  everyone.
I also think IEEE 802.3 should provide some direction  as “may be used” for the eco-system to develop MDI connector/interface. This means we should not over restrict MDI connector by tying to different applications such as  – Automotive, Industrial or Enterprise or any other application as in 8023cg_D3dp1 CL 146.8.1 and CL 147.9.1.
 
Number of task force attendees from  OEMs, Cable, Test Equipment and Connector industries drafted text and built consensus that allows eco-system to use  MDI connector as required by their application built conscious in the sections below.
 
“8023cg_D3dp0 CL 146.8.1  page 153 line 6 to page 155 line 7 AND
8023cg_ D3dp CL 147.9.1 page 200 line 17 to page 202 line 54”
 
Note: IEC 610176-125 reference needs to be changed to IEC 63171-6  
 
 
Suggested Remedy
 
Take text and figures
“8023cg_D3dp0 CL 146.8.1  page 153 line 6 to page 155 line 7”
 
Insert in 802cg_D3dp2 CL 146.8.1 page 171 line 46 But correct reference IEC 610176-125 TO IEC 63171-6. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as need
……………………………..
 
Take the test and figures
8023cg_ D3dp0 CL 147.9.1 page 200 line 17 to page 202 line 54”
 
Insert in 802cg_D3dp2 CL 146.9.1 page 220 line 45, But correct reference IEC 610176-125 TO IEC 63171-6. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed
 
Regards,
Amrik Bains
 
 
 
Cl 146 SC 146.8.1 P 179 L 1 # r02-14
Comment Type TR
*** Comment submitted with the file 101659700003-diminico_3cg_01_0819.pdf attached ***
The continued success of BASE-T technology is largely predicated
on leveraging the cost-effectiveness and plug-and-play simplicity
ensured by compatibility at the MDI. We need to be forward
thinking in developing a compatible user interface for BASE-T1.
The MDI is to specify mechanical compatibility and electrical
specifications not EMC conformance.
Suggested Remedy
146.8.1 MDI connectors -Page 179, Line 1 add text;
Connectors meeting the mechanical requirements of IEC 63171-1
may be used as the mechanical interface to the balanced cabling.
The plug connector is used on the balanced cabling and the MDI
jack connector on the PHY.
Re-instate IEC 63171-1 plug and jack figures from D3.1. with
text below.
Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed.
The IEC 63171-1 plug and jack are depicted (for informational
use only) in Figure 146-29 and Figure 146-30 respectively,
and the mating interface is depicted in Figure 146-31.
The assignment of PMA signals to connector contacts for
PHYs are given in Table 146-8.
147.9.1 MDI connectors -Page 227, Line 1 add text;
Connectors meeting the mechanical requirements of IEC 63171-1
may be used as the mechanical interface to the balanced cabling.
The plug connector is used on the balanced cabling and the MDI
jack connector on the PHY.
Re-instate IEC 63171-1 plug and jack figures from D3.1. with text
below. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed.
The IEC 63171-1 plug and jack are depicted (for informational
use only) in Figure 147-21 and Figure 147-22 respectively and
the mating interface is depicted in Figure 147-23. The
assignment of PMA signals to connector contacts for PHYs are
given in Table 147-3. These connectors should support link
segment DCR characteristics for 1.02 mm (18 AWG) to
0.40 mm (26 AWG) in Table 146B-1.
 

--
This message has been checked by ESVA and is believed to be clean.  If you think this message is actually spam, please choose one of the options below.  Blacklisting will cause email from this sender to never show up in you inbox again. 
Click here to mark it as spam.
Click here to blacklist sender
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1