Re: [802.3af] Clocking over Ethernet
Scott/Raymond/all
And as from an attending person not so titled as Geoff (802.3 Chair)
and Steve (802.3af Chair), and one who attended the meeting in which the
PAR was determined in York in 1999, and many other 'objective'
determining meetings since, I also believe the time is past for this new
wave (pun intended) of discussion on this very new idea. This discussion
borders on a philosophical change in the Asynchronous nature of 802.3
itself by possibly providing an as needed synchronization mechanism...
that either should have been mentioned a long time ago in AF (or even
prior to that), or should be taken to a future effort.
But that's just my opinion.....
At 03:44 PM 8/1/2001 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
>Scott-
>
>Steve Carlson is off the net and away from home for the day so I
will take
>the liberty of providing a reply to your question.
>
>>Therefore, I ask whether discussions limited to the topic of
how existing
>>802.3af proposals might support and/or preclude hypothetical
future,
>>backward compatible, enhancements to provide synchronization
support are
>>within scope,
>>or are they off topic for the reflector as well?
>
>They are off topic.
>
>1) I see no particular reason to think that DC power and time
>synchronization have any special relationship with each
other.
>
>2) There was no mention whatsoever of the need for time sync
during the
>period that this project was generating its PAR or formulating
its
>objectives. The group has a set of formally agreed upon
objectives that
>were voted on, approved, and forwarded to 802.3 for adoption as
the part of
>the formal charter for the group.
>
>3) The Task Force is well beyond the conceptual design stage and
is working
>very hard to refine the detailed specifications in support of
their
>conceptual decisions.
>
>4) The group is behind schedule in terms of the goals that they
set up for
>themselves. The goal of those who are actual members of the
standards
>formulating group now is to get their draft through the
refinement and
>approval process and finish the project.
>
>5) 802.3 has a process for determining interest in new topics of
proposed
>additions to the 802.3 Standard. It does not involve going
off-topic on the
>reflectors for existing projects. If you wish to try to generate
a new
>project within 802.3 then you should (a) read the process
at:
>and (b) get in touch with me directly.
>
>If you wish to pursue this further then you need to plan to
attend meetings
>and become a voting member of 802.3.
>We would be delighted to have you join us.
>Future meeting information can be found at:
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Geoff Thompson, Chair, IEEE 802.3
>
>|================================================|
>| Geoffrey O.
Thompson
|
>| Chair IEEE
802.3
|
>| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S
SC5-02
|
>| 4401 Great America
Parkway
|
>| P. O. Box
58185
|
>| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
USA
|
>| Phone: +1 408 495
1339
|
>| Fax: +1 408 495
5615
|
>| E-Mail:
thompson@xxxxxxxx
|
>| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page
at |
>| To download your FREE copy of Std. IEEE 802.3 |
>
>At 12:57 PM 8/1/01 -0700, Scott Carter wrote:
>
>>Steve and Colleagues -
>>
>>Indeed there seems to be a danger of scope drift, which must
be
>>fought. On the
>>other hand, there appears to be perceived value in a
mechanism which
>>integrates
>>power delivery with fine time synchronization support to the
DTE(trying to
>>phrase that latter concept generically). For the
record, I agree with that
>>perceived value. My company's adoption of 802.3af
versus staying with our
>>existing homegrown combo power/sync over unused pairs, or
preferrably some
>>other future standard that provides both, will be strongly
affected by how
>>802.3af addresses the issue. Others may be in the same
boat, i.e. this
>>discussion is therefore relevant to the topic of the breadth
of utility of
>>802.3af, and hence is within the PAR.
>>
>>Therefore, I ask whether discussions limited to the topic of
how existing
>>802.3af proposals might support and/or preclude hypothetical
future, backward
>>compatible, enhancements to provide synchronization support
are within scope,
>>or are they off topic for the reflector as well?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>--- Steve Carlson <scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> >
>> > Colleagues:
>> >
>> > The 802.3af Reflector is to be used only to support
the work of the Task
>> > Force. As Geoff Thompson has stated, the
"clocking over Ethernet" thread is
>> > not appropriate use of this reflector.
>> >
>> > The official policy on the use of this reflector is as
follows:
>> >
>> > "The reflector can be used for announcements,
comments, discussions, or
>> > dissemination of information related to the work of
this study group."
>> >
>> > This topic is not part of the PAR or Objectives of
802.3af.
>> >
>> > Please move this discussion to another venue.
>> >
>> > Thank you.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Steven B. Carlson
>> > President
>> > Co-Chair, ESTA Control Protocols Working Group
>> > Chair, ESTA ACN Task Group
>> > Chair, IEEE 802.3af DTE Power via MDI Task
Force
>> > High Speed Design, Inc.
>> > 11929 NW Old Quarry Road
>> > Portland, OR 97229
>> > 503.626.4206
>> > FAX 503.626.4206
>> > scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they
are willing to allow for others"
James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO
Cisco Systems
18581 N. Dallas Parkway
Dallas, Texas 75287
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com