| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Steve, While I understand your comment, I will note that I did allow for conversation when the presentation was first given, and many were quiet. Further, as I explained what happened, Bo was looking for further feedback for developing a follow-up presentation. Given the times we are in – it was a judgement call on my part, and as this is a non-binding strawpoll, I believe an appropriate way to gather feedback. As chair my responsibility is to help move this project along, and one of the few tools that I actually have to help leverage. Regards, John From: Trowbridge, Steve (Nokia - US) <steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxx> Hi John, I voted “need more information” because I thought it was procedurally inappropriate to try to “tack on” this kind of a straw poll after the meeting is concluded. I considered voting instead D – none of the above, simply because we hadn’t had the opportunity to discuss the alternatives in the meeting. When such straw polls are held “live”, there can be discussion, questions can be asked about the alternatives, and people can discuss pros and cons of the alternative before they answer the poll. Being asked to vote “blind” without the benefit of the Q&A opportunity and the discussion turns it into even more of a beauty contest than many such straw polls are anyway, and is not the way engineering decisions should be made. Please don’t do this again. Regards, Steve From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> All, The following is a summary of the 400GBASE-ZR transmitter clock phase jitter strawpoll. Please note that additional results came in after 5pm ET last night, which I am including in the summary. Strawpoll text – During the 17 Sept Joint TF Interim Mtg, Bo Zhang gave a presentation, entitled "Towards a baseline specification for 400GBASE-ZR transmitter clock phase jitter," which had three proposed options for developing a baseline targeting 400GBASE-ZR Tx clock phase jitter spec. We were going to do a straw poll on the group's thoughts about the different approaches on the 21 Sept Joint TF Interim, but the straw poll was inadvertently left off the agenda. This straw poll is to assess the .3cw TF's feelings towards the various approaches. [Please note that the presentation may be found at the 17 Sept Joint Interim Webpage ) Summary of Choices - Option A – Adopt traditional IEEE 802.3 Tx jitter specifications (J4u, JRMS, even-odd jitter) ..... Option B – Leverage IEEE 802.3-2018 Clause 124 400GBASE-DR4 Tx quality metric for coherent Tx output..... Option C – Adopt existing OIF 400ZR IA Tx clock phase noise mask and jitter specs...... Option D – Do not support any of the Options in 1 - 3 Option E – Need More Information Results Option A – 3 Option B – 3 Option C – 7 Option D – 1 Option E - 9 Those individuals responding that they need additional information are invited to share their thoughts with the reflector regarding what information they want to see before making a decision. Regards, John D’Ambrosia Chair, IEEE P802.3cw Task Force 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 |