Peter,
Thanks much for the further proposals – I think we’re getting closer here.
A thought: what if rather than replacing “associated” with “available” we just deleted the word altogether? For example, the result for 154.8.13 would be:
“Note: The channel loss will likely limit the maximum reach of these applications to less than 80 km specified for amplified applications.” Or if we want to be more explicit, what about “Note: The channel loss from the black link will
likely limit the maximum reach of these applications to less than 80 km specified for amplified applications.”?
Thanks.
Matt
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 6:20 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 a lot for your proposal.
I fully agree that we seem to have consensus on the principle, but need to find the most optimum wording.
Please find attached an updated version of your presentation, where I added slide 13.
Essentially I think that the channel loss is a “fixed” parameter but rather a subtraction of Transmit power and “conventional” receiver sensitivity.
Therefore I propose to modify “associated” to “available”.
I am quite confident that we will work out something at tomorrow’s call.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
Peter
From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 12:19 AM
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
Apologies this took me longer than I had hoped, but in the attached document I have attempted to trace out the evolution of clauses 154.8.13 and 154.8.15, as well as to compare the proposals for resolving comment #89 that are currently
on the table, as well as to provide a few thoughts of my own on possible resolutions. I wanted to give everyone a chance to read through the different versions of this section and what motivated them, as well as to compare the two options on the table (and
perhaps advance an idea for compromise). We can walk through this on Thursday’s call, and if it would help anyone review I can also put this into a Word document (just let me know).
In the end, I think we’re close to alignment, and it’s just a matter of working out the details of the text; my hope is that this helps us to do so.
Thanks.
Matt
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 4:06 AM
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 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