| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| Dear Colleagues, Today, in our interim meeting, I made a contribution where I proposed to adopt the BASE-U PCS & PMA of P802.3cz (currently in RevCom) to be reused in P802.3dh. It is the only one technically complete proposal of a PCS and PMA sublayers in P802.3dh. I did a motion to adopt it, where a couple of participants showed opposition. The argument was that more time and more information is needed to make consensus. Please, remember that this motion was announced by the chair in Interim meeting of January. In fact the meeting of today was changed from ad-hoc to interim for this reason. I would have appreciated that if more information was needed it would have been requested prior to today’s motion. The straw-poll made later resulted in 76% of participants supported adoption of the motion, 0% of participants were against and 24% voted that more information or time is needed. OK, it seems that finally consensus was not so far. During the interim meeting of September 2022, I gave an extensive tutorial (see https://www.ieee802.org/3/dh/public/Sep_2022/perezaranda_3dh_02a_2209_pcspma.pdf) about why P802.3cz did not reuse BASE-SR. In that tutorial I also explained in detail the distinctive features that made BASE-U PCS/PMA a suitable solution for automotive applications, and I provided link budget analysis of BASE-AU compared with BASE-SR, as well as GIPOF compared with OM3. In the link budget analysis for GIPOF, conservative assumptions were considered for channel bandwidth and attenuation, in order to have margin in the assessment. It is very important to note that we could elaborate infinite number of different PCS/PMA designs that would meet the P802.3dh objectives, by making variations from BASE-U PCS/PMA (e.g we can change the RS-FEC polynomial, or GF field, or k, n, we can change the scrambler, the PHD, the OAM, etc), However, achieved performance for those solutions would be essentially equal to the one provided by 802.3cz BASE-U PCS/PMA. Therefore, it is common sense to adopt P802.3cz BASE-U PCS/PMA sublayers. Different option would produce fragmentation of the automotive market, because incompatibility at PCS/PMA level of GIPOF and OM3 solutions, without technical reason behind, and introducing obstacles to the adoption of optical PHYs by the automotive industry. As I explained in the meeting today, in order to provide more information about this PCS/PMA proposal, it is necessary that you help me identifying the information that you consider is missed. So please, send to this reflector specific questions that you would like to resolve. I will do my best to prepare the needed material that I expect fill the identified gaps. My intention is to repeat the motion again the next meeting of March, provided that we are able to solve all the received questions. Thanks Rubén Pérez-Aranda, KDPOF To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF&A=1 |