RE: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
Howard
I did not mean to imply that we are totally clueless on what to do
Yes 90% of the defining the 'WHAT" involves defining the temperature range
for the OLTs and the remaining 10% is making sure the range means something
in the STD by having PICs for testing operation over the extended range.
In short, I agree with Jonathan.
Bruce
At 12:56 PM 1/23/2003 -0800, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>Howard,
>
>I think that there is one additional essential task:
>
>C) Provide an ***optional*** PIC for each PMD indicating operation over
>the "extended temperature range."
>
>jonathan
>
>| -----Original Message-----
>| From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>| Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:19 AM
>| To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>| Subject: Re: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
>|
>|
>|
>|
>| I think that the essential tasks are to:
>|
>| A) Ensure that all of the Active Optical Input and Active
>| Optical Output
>| Interface
>| parameters in clauses 58-60 can be met, and the corresponding links
>| function
>| properly, across an "extended temperature range" of operation.
>|
>| B) Define what an "extended temperature range" is, and place this
>| definition in
>| an informative annex (Annex 66A) of P802.3ah.
>|
>| If we can do this, we will have satisfied our objectives and
>| all of our
>| prior
>| motions on the subject, according to my interpretation.
>|
>| I believe that we are prepared to do this, and we should do this,
>| without further
>| delay. We will then have a follow on task to prove that optical
>| components and
>| links can simultaneously satisfy A and B above, and meet the
>| 5 criteria.
>|
>| We are past the point of deciding "what we are going to do".
>| Our job is to
>| carry out our decisions, and to prove that we have done so to the
>| satisfaction
>| of our Working Group and our Sponsor.
>|
>| Howard Frazier
>| Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force
>|
>| Bruce Tolley wrote:
>|
>| >
>| > Piers
>| >
>| > I am not exactly sure why you felt compelled to disagree
>| with what was
>| > essentially an invitation to a meeting, but here goes
>| >
>| > 1) Network operator requirements
>| > Yes not all the network operators from every region of the
>| world are
>| > coming to our meetings, but I think it speaks to broad market
>| > potential to listen to the customers who care enough to come and
>| > participate in the debate.
>| >
>| > Yes, network operators want all kinds of things and often different
>| > things, but we are discussing optical PMDs across extended
>| temperature
>| > here. Let's not cloud the issue. We do not have goals to
>| define fire
>| > safety or 48V DC power over fiber optic cabling.
>| >
>| > 2) Scope
>| > We have a goal that defines the scope. Just because we have
>| not done
>| > things in the past, does not mean we cannot do it in this
>| project if
>| > it is within our charter as defined by the PAR and our objectives.
>| > 802.3 never worked on an electrical power spec and it is now
>| > completing (rapidly I hope) the DTE power.
>| > We define many interfaces and performance parameters in our
>| documents
>| > some of which are not exposed as external interfaces to end
>| customers
>| > or testable by end customers.
>| >
>| > 3) Interpretation of Past motions
>| > The thread of motions shows that we are trying to fulfill the
>| > objective but we are not quite sure of the path to success. My
>| > personal opinion is that if the extended temperature ranges
>| are only
>| > informative, we will not be fulfilling the objective. Some
>| good work
>| > has gone into the draft, but we still have some real
>| technical work to
>| > do. The Task Force voted down the motion that said P802.3ah would
>| > define two sets of optical PMDs but gave us no clear
>| direction on how
>| > to move forward.
>| >
>| > Thanks
>| >
>| > Bruce
>| >
>| > At 03:54 PM 1/23/2003 +0100, piers_dawe@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>| >
>| >> Bruce, Brian and Richard,
>| >>
>| >> I'd like to point out where this chain of thought goes wrong,
>| >> especially as the logical disconnects have been repeated
>| later in the
>| >> thread. See below:
>| >>
>| >> > -----Original Message-----
>| >> > From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
>| >> > Sent: 16 January 2003 19:59
>| >> > To: piers_dawe@agilent.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>| >> > Subject: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature
>| range optics
>| >> >
>| >> > Piers and all
>| >> >
>| >> > I gave my self the action to help move forward the
>| outstanding issue
>| >> > regarding extended temperature ranges for P2P and P2MP optics
>| >> >
>| >> > We have an objective to include in our specification of PHYs,
>| >> > support for
>| >> > extended temperature range optics
>| >>
>| >> Yes. Support, not mandatory requirement.
>| >>
>| >> > The task force has in the past passed motions to specify EFM
>| >> > optics at -40
>| >> > to +85 C
>| >>
>| >> To specify the optics, not the temperature. This is very
>| clear from
>| >> the January and March 2002 motions. See e.g. the March
>| Joiner motion
>| >> "The basis for the first draft of the 802.3ah 1000Base-LX extended
>| >> temperature objective be met with text that uses 1000Base-LX 5 km
>| >> single mode specification (clause 38) as the starting
>| point with the
>| >> following changes and additions:
>| >> - Informative temperature range -40-+ 85 deg C
>| >> etc
>| >>
>| >> and
>| >>
>| >> January Motion #11
>| >> Motion: to create informative annex to address environmental
>| >> considerations.
>| >> Mover: Chris DiMinico
>| >> Second: Alan Flatman
>| >>
>| >> > Network operators have on multiple occasions communicated the
>| >> > requirement
>| >> > for extended temperature solutions.
>| >>
>| >> This is where the logic really falls apart.
>| >>
>| >> First, is it not just a small subset of network operators
>| (US ones)
>| >> who aren't installing much FTTB. Other network operators may have
>| >> different physical strategies, climates, and requirements.
>| >>
>| >> Second, network operators need many things; working capital, fire
>| >> safety, an electricity supply... It does not follow that 802.3 is
>| >> bound to provide any of them. Environmental requirements such as
>| >> these are out of scope of this standard - that's why
>| temperature is
>| >> to be addressed in an informative annex.
>| >>
>| >> Of course, customers will impose environmental
>| requirements in their
>| >> procurement specs - and Telcordia specs for example are
>| effectively,
>| >> procurement specs.
>| >>
>| >> > As recently as the Vancouver meeting, several box vendors
>| >> > (including me)b
>| >> > communicated the requirement for extended temperature range
>| >> > optics.
>| >>
>| >> Same lack of connected logic. Someone's need doesn't mean
>| that 802.3
>| >> is bound to supply. Temperature specs are available in the market
>| >> from other sources, who have more expertise in the matter.
>| >>
>| >> Piers
>| >>
>| >> > We need
>| >> > to agree on a path to move forward.
>| >> >
>| >> > So if interested parties want to forward to me their email
>| >> > addresses, I
>| >> > will host a conference call next week dedicated to this
>| >> > issue. I think we
>| >> > need to focus on a test specified in each PMD clause, to
>| agree on the
>| >> > ranges for OLT and ONU optics, to consider the possible
>| >> > special case of
>| >> > bidis that include 1550 nm DFBs, and to identify any PMD that
>| >> > might only
>| >> > need to be supported at standard, commercial temperatures.
>| >> >
>| >> > thanks
>| >> >
>| >> > Bruce Tolley
>| >> > Cisco Systems
>| >> >
>| >> > At 04:11 PM 1/8/2003 +0100, piers_dawe@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>| >> >
>| >> > >G.983.3 refers to ETS 300 019. This is a very readable
>| series of
>| >> > >documents from the European Telecommunications Standards
>| >> > Institute, giving
>| >> > >a classification of environmental conditions, e.g.
>| weatherprotected
>| >> > >locations, non-weatherprotected, underground. It uses four
>| >> > classes of
>| >> > >climatic conditions:
>| >> > > "applies to most of Europe"
>| >> > > extended
>| >> > > extremely cold
>| >> > > extremely warm dry
>| >> > >
>| >> > >And even better, up-to-date drafts are available on the
>| web, e.g. at
>| >> > >http://webapp.etsi.org/action%5COP/OP20030321/en_3000190104v0
>| >> 20101o.pdf .
>| >> >
>| >> >It is not the business of 802 to pick between these
>| classes but we can
>| >> >refer the readers of our standard to this information.
>| >> >
>| >> >ITU-T and ANSI T1 do not have similar documents.
>| >> >
>| >> >Both G.983.3 and refer to IEC 60721, classification of
>| environmental
>| >> >conditions.
>| >> >
>| >> >IEC 60721-3-4 - Ed. 2.0 Classification of environmental
>| conditions
>| >> - Part
>| >> >3: Classification of groups of environmental parameters and their
>| >> >severities - Section 4: Stationary use at non-weatherprotected
>| >> >locations 1995-01 is available for CHF99 at
>| >> >https://domino.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/artnum/019208 .
>| >> >
>| >> >Piers
>| >>
>| >>
>| >> Bruce Tolley
>| >> Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
>| >> Gigabit Systems Business Unit
>| >> Cisco Systems
>| >> 170 West Tasman Drive
>| >> MS SJ H2
>| >> San Jose, CA 95134-1706
>| >> internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
>| >> ip phone: 408-526-4534
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| > Bruce Tolley
>| > Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
>| > Gigabit Systems Business Unit
>| > Cisco Systems
>| > 170 West Tasman Drive
>| > MS SJ H2
>| > San Jose, CA 95134-1706
>| > internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
>| > ip phone: 408-526-4534
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| >
>|
>|
>|
Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ H2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
ip phone: 408-526-4534