Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_MAINT] Revising Clause 52 10GBASE-S for OM4

Paul-

Thanks for your response.
As you say, all of this is a little outside the scope of the presentation material but the more of it that we can get sorted out before the draft is written the more smoothly I would expect we can slide through the ballot process.

The sorts of considerations that you cite as to the structural differences between TIA and international standards are nothing new.  We have been coping with them for years.  The most notable example that I can think of is TIA "Categories" and ISO/IEC "Classes" in cabling.  It has always been clear that the IEEE community preferred using "category" and labeling the hardware vs. the ISO/IEC practice of specifying the performance of a channel into a class.  None the less, we have been able to cope with the difference and accommodated both schemes in our text.

I am confident that, while it is not a perfectly equivalent situation, we can follow the same sort of path here.

Best regards,

    Geoff

On 284//11 10:26 AM, Kolesar, Paul wrote:

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
43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |

 


ciena logo

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