Re: [802.3_EXTND_EPON] Action items for the next F2F meeting
Dear Nishihara-san,
The goals for the Study Group (SG) include the following (see also ExEPON_1111_opening.pdf, slide 11):
- develop complete objectives, PAR and 5 Criteria, by building consensus among the membership of the Study Group [completed as of last F2F meeting]
- seek approval for the said objectives, PAR and 5 Criteria at the WG 802.3, 802 SEC, IEEE NesCom and IEEE-SA Standards Board levels [current under way, we have 802.3WG approval as of the last F2F meeting in Atlanta]
The Study Group does not select specific technical solutions to address approved objectives, cannot make binding motions and decisions limiting the course of work for the future Task Force, prepare and circulate drafts etc. A Study Group may work towards consensus in the future Task Force by collecting technical contributions from the membership, take straw polls to facilitate selection of technical solutions in the future Task Force and holding discussions on associated technical topics. In short, we can see technical contributions, discuss their pros and cons but we cannot exclude them from the scope of the future Task Force.
Once a Task Force is created, it will use the material collected during January and March 2012 meetings of the Study Group to create baseline proposals, which will be then subject to technical discussion and selection process through discussions and motions. The Task Force will then select the most appropriate proposals to address each approved technical objective and work towards reflecting them in the draft.
In summary, the Study Group can be used to collect any technical materials to be used by the future Task Force, discuss solutions and build consensus, but it may not exclude any proposals or limit the scope of technical discussions in the future Task Force. A Task Force does the necessary technical work to select specific technical proposals (using materials collected during Study Group meetings and Task Force meetings) among submitted baseline proposals and then work towards preparing the draft for Task Force review.
Does this answer your question?
Marek Hajduczenia, PhD
Chair, Extended EPON Study Group, http://www.ieee802.org/3/EXTND_EPON/
ZTE Portugal
Edifício Amoreiras Plaza,
Rua Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto, nr. 9 - 6 A,
1070-374 Lisbon, Portugal
Office: +351 213 700 090
Fax: + 351 213 813 349
Mobile: +351 961 121 851 (Portugal)
-----Original Message-----
From: 西原 晋 [mailto:nishihara.susumu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 30 November 2011 12:38
To: STDS-802-3-EXTND-EPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EXTND_EPON] Action items for the next F2F meeting
Dear Marek,
Could you explain the difference between SG and TF, especially in terms of what you can do and you are not allowed to do?
Regards,
Susumu Nishihara, NTT
(2011/11/30 6:27), Marek Hajduczenia wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> We have had a very successful meeting in Atlanta two weeks ago and I
> would like to take this opportunity to thank once again everyone
> involved in these two long days of working on documentation, proposed
> responses to 5 Critters, Objectives and PAR. Now, with that part of
> our work over, it is time to start looking into organization of the
> time we have been allocated at the upcoming F2F meeting in January 2012.
>
>
>
> You may have heard that our motion to form the Extended EPON Task
> Force will not enter into 802 EC agenda up to shortly before March
> 2012 plenary meeting, which means that both in January 2012 and March
> 2012 we will be meeting as a Study Group. Our first official Task
> Force meeting will take place then only in May 2012. However, I would
> like us to take full advantage of the time we have and progress work
> for the future Task Force as much as possible during these upcoming
> two meetings. For this purpose, I would like to make call for contributions in the following areas:
>
>
>
> 1. Proposal(s) to address the following sub-objective: “Provide
> physical layer specifications for 1G-EPON supporting a downstream
> channel insertion loss of 29dB, compatible with PR(X)30 upstream
> channel insertion loss;”, including among the others:
>
> a. PMD specifications for ONU
>
> b. PMD specification for OLT
>
> c. Analysis of coexistence between new PMD and 10G-EPON PMDs
> (confirmation that such coexistence is guaranteed)
>
> 2. Proposal(s) to address the following set of questions regarding the
> second set of sub-objectives i.e. “Provide physical layer
> specifications for 1G-EPON supporting a split ratio of at least 1:64
> at a distance of at least
> 20 km; for 10G-EPON, supporting a split ratio of at least 1:64 at a
> distance of at least 20 km;”
>
> a. Target power budget value (32dB? 35dB? More?)
>
> b. Method to achieve such extended power budget: PMD or PBEx
>
> 3. PBEx architecture and interface specification proposals:
>
> a. PBEx in 802.3 and 802.1 Ethernet architecture of internetworked
> devices
>
> b. Parameter specification for individual interfaces
>
> c. Managed vs unmanaged PBEx solutions
>
> d. Impact on EPON MPCP and PCS specifications (timing requirements,
> jitter etc.)
>
> 4. 10G-EPON FEC gain in upstream: demonstration of practical
> measurement results for existing devices to give us a better idea on
> the power budget margin provided by the FEC adopted by 10G-EPON in
> 802.3av
>
> 5. Target distance / split ratios of interest for operators, together
> with suggestions of scenarios for exemplary power budgets to be placed
> in an informative annex (if such an annex is developed, depending on
> the decision of the future Task Force)
>
> 6. (low priority) Organization of draft
>
>
>
> When making proposals, especially for point 2, please bear in mind the
> other objectives we have approved i.e. “Maintain coexistence among
> 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON (i.e. support the same loss budget classes for
> 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON).” and “Changes to be confined to the PMD
> layer; PCS and MPCP are to be reused as is.”, which will be used in
> the future by the Task Force to eliminate any proposals which suggest
> e.g. different loss budgets for 1G-EPON and 10G-EPON, or changes to
> EPON MAC, as violating the approved objectives of the project.
>
>
>
> In terms of item number 3 – given that PBEx is a new device concept, I
> anticipate the need to provide a new set of interface parameters,
> depending on the proposed device architecture, its mode of operation
> etc. I hope that the proposals suggesting specific PBEx architectures
> would take that into consideration, listing physical layer parameters
> which need to be standardized to guarantee interoperability between individual devices i.e.
> PBEx and OLT and PBEx and ONU.
>
>
>
> Please note that because of the status of our Study Group, we will not
> be able to make selection of technical proposals, select baselines for
> future Task Force, develop draft or take motions binding for the future Task Force.
> We should, however, use the time of the following two F2F meetings to
> build consensus around specific solutions, collect material for the
> future Task Force’s consideration and organize it in the best way possible.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration and respective contributions
>
> Marek Hajduczenia, PhD
>
> Chair, Extended EPON Study Group, http://www.ieee802.org/3/EXTND_EPON/
>
> ZTE Portugal
> Edifício Amoreiras Plaza,
> Rua Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto, nr. 9 - 6 A,
> 1070-374 Lisbon, Portugal
>
> Office: +351 213 700 090
> Fax: + 351 213 813 349
> Mobile: +351 961 121 851 (Portugal)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
西原 晋
NTTアクセスサービスシステム研究所
239-0847 神奈川県横須賀市光の丘1-1
電話: 046-859-2124
ファクス: 046-859-5513