Pete, Paul,
Thanks for your inputs. I
also received a nice observation from Brad Booth on the formatting on slide
10.
I’ve elected to keep the
TIA reference on slide 13 note f. If there is further debate/consternation
on this point, we can either use the reflector or discuss face to face at the
meeting. I don’t have a firm opinion on this point, I just wish to be
consistent with IEEE style and be as accurate as possible.
I’ll email a revised
version to the reflector at the end of this week pending any additional
feedback.
--matt traverso
From: Kolesar, Paul
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:35 AM
To: STDS-802-3-MAINT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_MAINT] Revising Clause 52 10GBASE-S for OM4
Pete,
I considered your proposed alternative as I wrote my proposed
change. The reasons why I decided to propose appending the IEC reference
rather than replacing the TIA reference are that the TIA reference for OM3 is
cited in note e, and both IEC and TIA references are cited in note d.
So following those precedents I thought it better to be complete.
Regards,
Paul
From: Anslow, Peter
[mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5:45 AM
To: Kolesar, Paul; STDS-802-3-MAINT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Revising Clause 52 10GBASE-S for OM4
Paul,
I agree with your proposed
changes except that on slide 13, note f, I think it would be better to replace
the TIA specification with a reference to IEC 60793-2-10:2011 since there
has been a trend to prefer international IEC references and there doesn’t
seem to be a good reason to introduce possible ambiguity by specifying multiple
sources for this information.
Regards,
Pete Anslow | Senior
Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street | London,
EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct
+44 2070 125535 |
From: Kolesar, Paul
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 26 April 2011 21:13
To: STDS-802-3-MAINT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_MAINT] Revising Clause 52 10GBASE-S for OM4
Matt,
Thanks for circulating this slide deck. I remain a supporter,
and thanks for listing my name. Please change my affiliation from
Systimax to CommScope. Although they are often used interchangeably
because SYSTIMAX Solutions was the former name of the division, SYSTIMAX is a
brand of cabling solutions offered by CommScope.
A few more suggestions.
Slide 3, bullet 3: for improved clarity and simplicity I suggest
changing “new multimode fiber” to “OM4”.
Global (affecting slide 3 bullet 1, slide 13 note f, and slide 14),
please be aware that the IEC specification containing OM4 has now been
published. It is the same as the TIA spec. So the references to
TIA-492AAAD, while accurate, now have an international alternative, IEC
60793-2-10 edition 4: 2011. Below I’ve pasted the cover page
viewable from the IEC web store. The specific effect on the three slides
mentioned is as follows:
Slide 3, bullet 1: suggest changing to:
TIA and IEC have standardized a new class of multimode fiber, OM4,
in TIA-492AAAD and IEC 60793-2-10 ed.4
Slide 13, note f: suggest appending at end:
“and IEC 60793-2-10 ed.4”
Slide 14: Given that the edition of the cited IEC reference
is not specified, the latest edition (ed. 4) is implied. In that case the
proposed addition of the reference to TIA-492AAAD is not needed and the slide
can be deleted.
Lastly, on slide 13 the dispersion slope entries need to be
corrected as follows (see yellow
highlighted text):
From:
0.105 for 1295 <= lambda0 <= 1310 And 0.000375x(1590-lambda0)
for 1295 <= lambda0 <= 1340f
To:
0.105 for 1295 <= lambda0 <= 1310 and 0.000375(1590-lambda0)
for 1310 <= lambda0 <= 1340f
If these changes are not clear, please call or email your concerns.
Regards,
Paul
From: Matt Traverso
(mattrave) [mailto:mattrave@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:46 PM
To: STDS-802-3-MAINT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: John Petrilla; Jonathan King; Houfar Azgomi (hazgomi); Hugh Barrass
(hbarrass); Carlo Tosetti (ctosetti); Marco Mazzini (mmazzini); Kolesar, Paul;
Chris Cole; Petar Pepeljugoski; Ali Ghiasi; Mike Dudek; Wael Diab
Subject: Revising Clause 52 10GBASE-S for OM4
IEEE Colleagues,
During the working group ballot phase for the maintenance
project (exiting July plenary, http://www.ieee802.org/3/minutes/mar11/0311_maint_close_report.pdf#Page=8)
, we intend to submit a revision comment. The attached presentation
provides the background, and details the proposed changes. In the
interest of building consensus prior to the working group ballot, we wish to
solicit additional expert opinions & supporters. Please advise if
there are any questions.
Also, per an offline discussion with Wael Diab, it seems
likely that an opportunity to present this material at the July plenary should
be available.
Thanks for your attention,
--matt traverso
w = 408.853.3211
e = mattrave@xxxxxxxxx