Re: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
Bruce,
I never meant to imply that you or anyone else was suffering from
Klew Deficit Disorder (with your help, we will find a cure).
I was trying to get us focused on a specific task, and I think we
are making progress. This is due in no small part to your willingness
to lead the effort.
I am still mulling over the concept of adding an optional PICS item.
At first blush, it seems okay to me, but I wonder if it is truly necessary.
I am not raising an objection to Jonathan's addition, just scratching my
head and thinking about it.
I would like us to avoid writing a test procedure for extended temperature
operation. There are literally thousands of requirements in IEEE Std 802.3,
and they ALL have to be testable requirements, but ALMOST NONE of
them has an associated test procedure written into the standard. The
exceptions
are cases where the requirement is unique to 802.3, and the test procedure
is not otherwise well documented.
When it comes to temperature testing, there are reams of documents and
a vast amount of experience to rely on. I can't imagine why we would write
a test procedure for extended temperature operation into P802.3ah.
I think we're getting very close to a solution. Anybody see a serious flaw
in the logic?
Howard
Bruce Tolley wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>