Re: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 t

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

Peter,

Agreed, and that is my intent – to focus on specific proposals.

Thanks!

Matt

From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:45 AM
To: Matt Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Maniloff, Eric" <emanilof@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Hi Eric, Matt,

Thanks for both of your responses.

I didn’t want to shut down the discussion but rather focus on what should go specifically in a proposed response.

To Eric, on your statement “My recollection is that we decided not to attempt to fully specify the black-link and the associated propagation penalty for the unamplified application, but we can definitely discus how we want to specify this as well as the wording.”, it is my view that that was the correct decision, so that we could add some clarifying wording, but not add anything specific how a black link not meeting the objective of 80 km should be constructed.

Back to the both of you, yes, I believe we are on the same page, but I would like to suggest to focus on specific text proposals.

If we could converge on that we could save significant meeting time.

Kind regards,

Peter

From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 11:29 PM
To: STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Peter,

Thanks for the additional information. I’m definitely happy to discuss further on that call – I’m just trying to follow the chair’s directive to also try using the reflector and not rely exclusively on the calls. ☺

In the end, I think we’re likely largely on the same page, and it’s just a matter of getting the wording right. While the call will be useful for that, I think there’s also a value in seeing things written down; to that end, I’ll try to collect my thoughts more specifically and share that around sometime in the near future for consideration.

Thanks again.

Matt

From: Eric Maniloff <eric.maniloff.ieee@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Eric Maniloff <eric.maniloff.ieee@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 1:32 PM
To: "STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Hi Peter,

I think having the discussion will be useful. You did represent the reason for the original comment properly, that is that it is sensitivity at high OSNR not OSNR itself that limits the unamplified application's maximum loss. My recollection is that we decided not to attempt to fully specify the black-link and the associated propagation penalty for the unamplified application, but we can definitely discus how we want to specify this as well as the wording.

Cheers, Eric

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 7:06 AM Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Matt,

Thanks for clarifying.

The current additional text in 154.8.13 and 154.8.15 was a result of resolution to comment #24 by yourselves to D1.0:

Just accepting Eric’s proposed remedy would sort of undo that agreement.

I would like to suggest to discuss this more in a broader environment during next week’s call on 26 March when this comment is on the agenda.

I trust that we will be able to achieve consensus on acceptable wording.

Kind regards,

Peter

From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Peter,

No worries, it’s a crazy time for all of us. And sure, I’m happy to clarify.

Primarily, the issue was that I was having some difficulty understanding how those two sections would looks once your proposed changes were applied – I didn’t find the instructions to the editor to be sufficiently clear to understand what the result would look like. Based on your email below, I now understand the intent is to remove the final sentence of 154.8.15 and replace it with a Note along the lines of the text that you’ve proposed, as well as to add a note to the end of 154.8.13 along the lines of the text that you proposed. Thanks for that clarification – that definitely helps.

After reviewing your proposed change with that clarification in mind, I believe that a potentially simpler solution would be to simply accept Eric’s proposed remedy as is, or when moving that sentence from 154.8.15 to 154.8.13 to change it into a Note. His central point is that in an unamplified application the limitation is the power and not the OSNR; therefore, the note about channel loss better fits in the section regarding input power rather than OSNR. I agree with that statement.

Your proposed change seems to be to add the text about this case being power limited to 154.8.13, but to retain it in 154.8.15 as well. While certainly acceptable in principal, it doesn’t seem entirely necessary.

In addition, rather than keeping the text that already exists, you’re proposing a modification to the text that reads in part: “Minimum average input power [unamplified]” will determine the channel loss for unamplified applications”; the equivalent existing text is “The associated channel loss will likely limit the maximum reach of these applications”. IMHO, the existing text is clear, to the point, and easy to understand; I don’t see a need to change it. Did you have a reason in mind for modifying the existing text there?

Hope that helps things a bit.

Thanks!

Matt

From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:59 AM
To: Matt Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your response.

Sorry for my delayed reply. Too much going on right now.

I am not sure that I understand your question about the notes, because in D2.0 there are no notes in neither 154.8.13 nor 154.8.15.

For this comment the editorial team has proposed a response “proposed reject”, which based on further thinking and some offline feedback, I would like to modify to an “accept in principle”.

Then in 154.8.15 there is a final sentence, which I am now proposing to move into a Note. And also add a note to 154.8.13.

The rest is for further discussion, probably during the relevant call when we are going to address the specific comments.

My proposal is for specific text to go into the 2 subclauses 154.8.13 and 154.8.15.

The first question we need to answer is, do we want to “accept” or “reject” the specific comment or apply an “accept in principle”.

If the latter, which I am proposing right now, then we need to agree on an instruction for the editorial team, which is the specific wording.

My proposal for revised text is just a first step, keeping in mind that the unamplified case is something we want to continue to describe in an informative manner, but which is also something actually outside the scope of this clause.

So, then I also don’t quite understand your statement “I would want to ensure that the text talking about the inter-related nature of the input power and the OSNR is maintained”.

I am under the assumption that I am not proposing to make any changes to that effect.

So please clarify where you concerns are and which specific changes you would want to suggest.

Kind regards,

Peter

From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 7:05 PM
To: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Peter,

Thanks much for the suggestions.

A couple of thoughts/questions…

Are you proposing to replace the existing notes with this text, or to amend the existing text in some way with this new text? I’m trying to get a sense of what the section will look like when the changes are fully implemented, so I can better comment on them. In particular, I would want to ensure that the text talking about the inter-related nature of the input power and the OSNR is maintained, which goes back to the original proposal that essentially created a graph of what was expected for compliant devices.

That said, while perhaps it’ll make more sense in context, I am wondering if the wording “The associated channel loss will be determined by the value of “Minimum average input power [unamplified]”” is quite what we’d want to say: while we can derive the channel loss by knowing the transmit power and the receive power, the actual channel loss is a function of the black link rather than the minimum power the receiver can operate at. I think the key points here are that in an unamplified scenario the reach will be determined by the transmit power, the receive power sensitivity, and the loss in the black link, which _may_ limit it to less than 80km; as opposed to an amplified scenario, in which case your limiting factor is more likely to be OSNR than power.

BTW, I also think it’s important to continue to make it clear that while operating at 80km without amplifiers is unlikely, it is – at least theoretically – possible. If we state definitively that it’s not, we may get some pushback on that point.

Thanks.

Matt

From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2020 at 7:52 AM
To: "STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-DWDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_DWDM] Proposed revision of proposed response to comment #89 to draft D1.2 of P802.3ct

Dear colleagues,

As mentioned during yesterday’s ct call, there are some comments for which I want to propose a modified proposed response.

For comment #89 by Eric Maniloff I would like to propose to change the “proposed reject” to an “accept in principle” and change the proposed response to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Create a Note in 154.8.15: In the case of an unamplified link the value of “OSNR(193.6) [unamplified]” is identical to the value of “Transmitter OSNR(193.6)”. The associated channel loss will be determined by the value of “Minimum average input power [unamplified]” resulting in a maximum reach of these applications to less than 80 km specified for amplified applications.

Create a Note in 154.8.13 “The value of “Minimum average input power [unamplified]” will determine the channel loss for unamplified applications, resulting in a maximum reach of these applications to less than 80 km specified for amplified applications.”

With editorial license.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind regards,

Peter Stassar

Editor Clause 154

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

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

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