Chris,
That was completely uncalled for (as was the tone of your email on Tuesday, April 07, 2020 1:53 PM).
I was not trying to shut anything down. I was simply pointing out that the discussions had moved on (and in a productive way) from the original proposal contained in the comment responses and in my presentation (in case you were not aware).
Gary
From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 6:10 PM
To: Gary Nicholl (gnicholl) <gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Comments #77 and #83
Gary
You started the reflector dialogue, so it’s a bit ironic to see you shutting it down.
How about if we focus on the substance of the getting the spec right. Both David and Peter are making good suggestions, and others in the Task Force may have good ideas. So restricting the discussion is not constructive. That’s what the
reflector is for.
I am participating and contributing to the consensus effort, just not along the lines you want.
Chris
From: Gary Nicholl (gnicholl) <gnicholl@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Comments #77 and #83
Chris,
Your information is out of date. Based on discussions during Tuesday’s conference call the TF is following a different direction to try and resolve the issue, and we are not planning on directly implementing the suggested remedy for
comments #77/#83 or what was presented in nicholl_3cu_02_041420.
There is a small group of people working offline to build a consensus proposal. If you (or anyone else) would like to participate/contribute , please let me know.
Gary
Ps. While reviewing D2.0 in the context of comments #77/#83 (thanks to Dave for bringing this everyone’s attention) I also realized that in addition to the issues with the tables discussed below there is a bigger issue with the “Definition
of optical parameters and measurement methods” sections 140.7.9 and 151.8.10.
- These sections currently contain normative values for the Receiver Sensitivity (RS) that don’t belong. Normative values should only be specified in the “PMD to MDI optical specifications”
sections of 140.6 and 151.7 (as it these sections that are referenced by the PICS). This needs to be fixed.
- Since we made Receiver Sensitivity (RS) normative at the January meeting, sections 140.6 and 151.7 need to define the associated measurement methodology, i.e. how to generate a
test signal with the appropriate value of SECQ to be used for testing conformance to the RS spec (have a look at what was done for stressed receiver sensitivity and other optical parameters in the same sections). This is currently missing in the draft and
needs to be added.
I would very much appreciate it if you could also lend your extensive expertise to reviewing sections 140.7.9 and 151.8.10, and provide some thoughts/guidance on how they need to be updated. The discussion on the tables below is only a
very small part of the issue we are trying to fix.
From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100G-OPTX] Comments #77 and #83
Dear 802.3cu Task Force Participants,
Editor’s comments #77 and #83 argue that it is necessary to put back equation references into the specifications table to achieve clarity.
Proposal for Receiver Sensitivity (RS) Equation References in tables (comments #77, #83)
This is fixing something that has worked perfectly well in 802.3 for the past two decades.
802.3ae TF introduced the concept of OMA (min) minus TDP to enable trade-off between optical TX power and TX penalty. The OMA (min) vs. TDP curve has a hockey stick shape, exactly like the OMA (max) vs. SECQ curve in 802.3cu. Let’s take
a look if the 802.3ae-2002 Standard found it necessary to insert equation references into the spec table to achieve clarity.
No equation references are to be found in the spec table, only numerical values.
Looking in 802.3ba-2010, 802.3bs-2017, 802.3cd-2018, we similarly find no equation references for OMA (min). Numerical values are perfectly clear.
Shockingly, even in 802.3cu, the same hockey stick shaped curve specifications for OMA (min) vs. TDECQ are numerical values, with no need for equation references in the spec table.
Yet in the same Standard, the OMA (max) vs. SECQ hockey stick shaped curves are deemed so different and so complicated that equation references in the spec tables are proposed as the only path to clarity.
A quote from the January presentation proposing the restoration of numerical values to the spec tables, and removal of equation references, is worth repeating.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/Jan20/cole_3cu_01b_0120.pdf
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Thank you
Chris
From: Chris Cole
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 1:53 PM
To: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Your presentation on comments #77 and #84
The Editor must have missed the January presentation where the End Users were very clear on their preference.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/Jan20/cole_3cu_01b_0120.pdf#page=29
It would sever the IEEE better if we wrote the specifications for them, rather than for our own notion of aesthetics.
Chris
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 5:57 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100G-OPTX] Your presentation on comments #77 and #84
Hi Gary and cu colleagues,
I just had a look at your presentation proposing responses to #77 and #84.
While I would agree that the changes agreed in Geneva could cause potential confusing, but at the same time I would agree with Chris, having proposed the changes during the Geneva meeting, that having just the
formula’s would also be confusing.
I believe there is another possibility for addressing the 2 related comments, which is by doing both, namely where we maintain the line in the Table for SECQ up to 1.4 dB with a fixed value and another line for
SECQ higher than 1.4 dB where we show the formula.
Then we don’t need the extensive note.
Furthermore we will also maintain the intent of the change made in D2.0.
There is precedence of dual line entrances in the various Transmitter Tables, where we distinguish between values for power above and below a certain extinction ratio.
Looking forward to our further discussion today.
Kind regards,
Peter
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