| Michal-
I believe that you truly misunderstand the discussion. What we formulate are VOLUNTARY standards. When you do an implementation of something that is a voluntary standard you can implement or not implement any portion of it that you want to. However, when you do that you as a vendor take responsibility for fully specifying the portion where you deviated AND you take on the responsibility for creating the environment for test equipment and interoperability testing.
That is a set of responsibilities that is very reasonably taken on by automotive manufacturing entities either separately or within their trade organizations. That along with lots of other well established requirements for connectors within the automotive environment made it appropriate for us to leave the spec of the physical connector to the auto folks.
However it is NOT a set of responsibilities that contributes to broad market success when the products (PHY equipped DTEs and cabling elements) are marketed to broad market communities as will be the case for 10BASE-T1L. They want products that can be plugged together under a very simple set of rules and just work. They work because we have guaranteed the operation of the full end-to-end system within the standard in pluggable off-the-shelf parts. It has been the experience of the long term membership of 802.3 that a specific physical connector is a key element of those simple rules.
If you want to produce product with screw terminals then go for it. If that is enough of a market advantage then that will become well known and may even take over the market over the long haul.
For the market to meet its potential, I believe a physical connector included in the standard, one who's presence shows up in the PICS PRO FORMA in the standard and in the product PICS, is necessary.
Best regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey O. Thompson, Life Senior Member GraCaSI Standards Advisors Mountain View, CA 94043-5286
All, I am coming from a different background, and admitting to have only little experience with standardisation and its wide impact. However, I am watching this conversation and can’t help myself but contribute as well. BTW, I agree with George in all what he wrote. My few cents: I think the 10SPE is promising to enable Ethernet to be used in applications and environments where it has not been not possible to use it before. These may have very specific not only electrical, but also mechanical requirements. I think that there is some thinking that specifically 10BASE-T1L may take some stake off the 4-20mA/HART connectivity – and that is very often a cable going through a gland, to two screw terminals, all protected against moist / dust / gases, in temperature ranges from arctic freeze do desert bake. And that connectivity is successfully working, for decades. And BTW the person installing the node needs only a knife and a screwdriver to connect it, and sometimes may be wearing gloves and goggles / protective mask when doing so… Perhaps there could be similar examples for the 10BAS-T1S. Then specifically in the case of the 10BASE-T1L, given the signal bandwidth and other circumstances, the connector itself is hardly going to have significant effect on the link parameters, compared to the cable. Talking about cable - there is no CATx here, but rather link segment specification, which I firmly believe is (again) reflecting the anticipation of various cables used in the context of various applications’ requirements. Do we really appreciate and anticipate all type of applications this is potentially going to be used in? Do we want to mandate one /two connectors, and make the applications where it is not practical or even possible to use that connector(s), to violate the standard? Regards, Michal. All – Let me clarify some things that seem to have gotten lost, or perhaps mis-stated. The compatibility criterion in clause 1.1.3.2 is specified for the physical media signals. Regardless of the connector used, the signals at the interface plane meet the criteria specified in the draft (PMA electricals are specified at that interface plane) and link segment meets the transmission parameters from the interface plane to the interface plane at the link partner. IEEE Std 802.3-2018 contains PHYs with minimal description or requirements on the specifics on the mechanical connector, which leads me to the understanding that calling out a specific mechanical connector is not the requirement. However, electrical specification of the signal parameters at the interface point is provided, at least for the examples I have looked at. 802.3cg follows this practice, whether there is one IEC mechanical connector specification called out with a ‘shall’, two with a ‘may’, or none at all. The electrical performance of the MDI, as an interface, is specified, uniquely, in the 802.3cg draft, and has been for some time, as well as specific statements about the mechanical interface pins, similar to those found in IEEE Std 802.3-2018 clause 96 and elsewhere. Mr. Kim, as a champion of 802.3bw 100BASE-T1, should be aware of this, as the resulting clause 96 specifies an MDI, but not a specific MDI connector. 96.8.1 offers no more on the mechanicals than the number of pins that are used – not even whether the connector only has that number of pins – but 96.8.2 specifies the electrical characteristics of the MDI at the interface plane, which is what is needed for compatibility and testing. I will stay out of the debate about the desirability to have a single connector specified. However, I would note that the balance of utility vs. pain for requiring a single connector is generally associated with how dominant a singular application environment is. The expansion of Ethernet beyond the IT space has brought with it many different operational environments. The automotive world and the industrial world both use application-specific connectors, often for good reasons. Even when using existing BASE-T ethernet, they may not be using the specified RJ-45 connector, but still use the MDI electrical specifications, and may test with an adapter to RJ-45. -george Yong- I have not missed your point. I think my point is being missed WRT to THE MDI. It's not a matter of how many connector test head you are using. Hypothetically, what would you do if your test fails with one connector head but passes with another connector head on what seems to be equivalent units (or the same unit with different connector). Perhaps -- later -- someone could explain away some parasitic XYZ (crosstalk, capacitance, etc whatever) or previously not known factors. Having what we have had in 802.3 -- THE MDI spec -- helps to avoid issues while increasing the probably of interoperability that for which we do standards. Yong Kim, affiliation: NIO Theo- Thanks for your input and experience. Anecdotally, it is obvious that you never worked for Bud Blitz as I did. He was the tool Czar at the leasing company that I worked for many years ago. Designing tools was part of my job. Bud's position was that the tools suitcase was already too heavy, so you didn't get to add a tool unless you took one out. His "guidance" (far too soft a word) drives my thinking here. All great rants. Thank you. Speaking as one who has had the good fortune to produce more than a few portable field testers, I find agreement with at least one point. A single test interface is always preferable. However, when multiple connection interfaces present themselves, (and they always do), there are numerous techniques to offer users an efficient and cost effective means to adapt. So far, at least in my 20+ years of experience this has not presented a barrier to broad market adoption. I would like to add one comment in particular that you didn't cover. That is test equipment, in particular field test equipment, even more so portable field test equipment. Field test equipment is built in far, far smaller quantity than DTE ports. Therefore, having a single port type (i.e. single MDI connector type) has a far larger impact on field test equipment development cost, device cost, device portability and of course device broad applicability in the field. Cheap, light, portable test equipment is a key element in broad market adoption. My addition to your excellent points.
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
|