Geoff,
Thanks for the reminder of the reference
policy. Here is a bit more information which has relevance to this
particular set of citations. While the specifications of the TIA and IEC
are aligned, the structure of the documents is different. In TIA each
fiber has its own stand-alone spec (e.g. TIA-492AAAC for OM3, TIA-492AAAD for
OM4), while in IEC all graded index glass fibers reside within the same
document and are separated by different designations (e.g. A1a.2 = OM3, A1a.3 =
OM4). So when referring to specific fibers it can be insufficient to
simply state the overall IEC standard 60793-2-10, while a simple citation of
the TIA document is clear and sufficient. Therefore, depending on the
details of the citation it can be better to cite both. The footnote route
you suggest may be workable for this purpose, but in some cases this would end
up being a footnote on a note and therefore perhaps a bit odd.
While a bit outside the scope of the
presentation material, the existing references should be examined to align them
with this policy.
Regards,
Paul
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011
9:58 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-MAINT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_MAINT]
Revising Clause 52 10GBASE-S for OM4
Matt-
All-
The 802.3 policy of long standing is (only) to use a national or local standard
where an equivalent international standard is not available. Thus to
adhere to this convention (and to preserve the stand's flavor and standing as a
world-wide standard/specification) the primary reference should be the IEC
reference now
that it is available.
If you feel that you have a legitimate reason to keep the TIA spec then I would
suggest that you call it out in a footnote which can say that the TIA spec is
equivalent to and been superseded by the IEC spec for international reference
purposes.
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
On 274//11 1:31 PM, Matt Traverso (mattrave) wrote:
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
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