Peter,
The task force had previously “adopted” by motion nomenclature. We then had a contribution at a subsequent meeting questioning the earlier decision of the task force that prompted the task force to “modify”
by motion its nomenclature. The meeting minutes are thus not inconsistent with the chain of events. I also do not have a photograph of the screen though.
Jeff
From: Brian Welch (bpwelch) <00000e3f3facf699-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:35 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Mark, Ken,
Since presentation #5 is mine, I thought I would comment that the minutes relating to that presentation look correct to me (as currently posted ) and I would not suggest making any revisions to them.
Thanks,
Brian
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:26 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Hi Mark, Ken,
I have looked at the updated unapproved meeting minutes of the P802.3cu meeting in Vienna.
I noted that you have taken account some of my comments sent to you and Kent off the reflector.
Before going into detail I would like to point a potential issue with respect to motion #6 as it is mentioned in the draft minutes:
The way it’s currently written doesn’t make sense, because it’s suggested that the new nomenclature is modified to ?
Unfortunately I wasn’t allowed to take a picture of the screen at the meeting, otherwise I would have been able to check what was shown on the screen.
I think that if it was as written in the report, we may need to take another motion to correct it by something that says “move to adopt ……”.
So that should be a topic on the agenda for next week’s meeting.
Then the report:
- My colleague’s name is still wrong: Last (family) name is Mi and first name is Guangcan (and not the other way around).
- Presentation # 1:
- It’s stated:
- “Presenter indicated that consistency between the other recent IEEE standards (P802.3ck 100GBASE-KR1) would be preferred.”
- P802.3ck is not yet a (recent) standard, so please modify to:
- “Presenter indicated that consistency with agreements in P802.3ck 100GBASE-KR1 would be preferred.”
- Presentation #5:
- I had indicated before that I feel that a bit too much detail has been given on the various presentations, where there is always the risk of being not sufficiently complete, however the details provided
on this presentation are a bit out of balance with the details on the other presentations.
- Therefore I propose the current bullets to be replaced by:
- Presented experimental results on a technology agnostic technique, using bottom eye compression in the transmitter, to mitigate dispersion penalty towards lower TDECQ.
- Presenter claimed that there was no impact to currently proposed IEEE transmitter specifications and measurement methodology.
Kind regards,
Peter Stassar
From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) [mailto:00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 July 2019 09:47
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Dear Colleagues,
The minutes from this week’s meeting have been prepared and posted here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/July19/minutes_3cu_0719_unapproved.pdf
Thanks to Ken Jackson for the excellent work pulling these together!
Regards, Mark
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1