Eugene,
We’ve discussed during our meetings much of what you’re asking about below, so I’ll briefly provide some background. Hopefully you’ll attend future
meetings to provide feedback in real time to help resolve some of these items.
See inline below with Ck>.
Curtis
Curtis: First a few general comments.
1. "To attempt approval in November, we must agree (via Study Group vote) at Interim in Florida." With this target it
means that we only have one SG meeting to move to the TF. It this realistic? Or are we really in such a hurry?
Ck> Slight correction… if we have an interim meeting at end of September, we can actually agree at that meeting, instead of the Florida meeting. Is it realistic? Objectives are mostly
agreed to by people on the call. You’re correct, there may be others at the interim who do not agree, and the objectives still go to a vote. Are we in a hurry? I wouldn’t characterize this as being in a hurry, but I also don’t think we should endure another
4 month delay if we can avoid it.
There are several very different architectures to achieve beyond 10G in EPON, single lane 25G, single lane 40G, multi-lane 40G (4x10), multi-channel 40G (4x10G hybrid WDM-TDM), etc. Without sold feasibility studies
of any of these how can we pickup one at first F2F meeting?
Ck> We discussed this extensively over the past two calls, and via email. All these options you point out are technical decisions for task force, not study group.
2. "Agreed objectives". At this stage without a formal F2F or even a formal Ad-hoc it is too immature to say "agreed". It is likely that we'll have more people at the interim meeting, what is agree
by now may not be true by then.
Ck> Yes, you’re correct. I should be more clear and say “Agreed to by conference call participants”, or something like that.
A few more comments on the "agreed objectives":
1. Objective 1. "Support subscriber access networks using point to multipoint topologies on optical fiber".
Should be ...on single mode optical fiber".
Ck> Ok.
2. Objective 3. "Support power budgets equivalent to power budgets defined by EPON in 802.3-2015"
When move to higher rate, such as 25G or 40G, we need consider:
a). higher splitting ratio may be needed to more effectively use the bandwidth,
b). at 40G, dispersion on SFM may need to be considered,
c). if advanced modulation such as PAM4 is used, its impact on power budget need to be considered,
d). if hybrid WDM -TDM is used, the extra loss of WDM filters need to be included...
With the above it means that we need to study each case before arrive at a objective for power budget .
Ck> Yes, we would need to study all these items to determine impact on power budget. But the objective remains that we want to be able to support at least the same split ratio/distance
as that supported in 10G-EPON.
3. Objective 4 essentially means that we want both 25G single lane and 40G (single-lane or multi-lane) solutions. This is debatable.
Ck> Maybe, maybe not. All this says is we want a solution of at least 25 Gb/s MAC data rate, and at least 40 Gb/s MAC data rate. The objectives do not say anything about single lane or
multiple lanes.
4. Should we add coexistence objective? The answer is definitively yes. The question become complected if we adopt 25G and 40G, possibly multi-lane, at the same time which point back to my question on
the objective 4.
Ck> Yes, I think most people will think we need to add a coexistence objective. Give some thought to whether coexistence with 1G-EPON or 10G-EPON is necessary, or both.
Hope this helps.
Curtis
Regards,
Eugene Dai PhD
Principle transport architect
Transport and access networks
Cox Communications
404-269-8014
Eugene.dai@xxxxxxx
Note: I will be extending the weekly meeting to two hours. I will only use the IEEE NG-EPON email reflector for the meeting invitation and any
future broadcast emails. If you have not yet joined, please click this link to join:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/NGEPONSG/reflector.html
Please let me know if I need to add to or revise the meeting notes below.
IEEE 802.3 NG-EPON Study Group Work Items and Socialization
·
Review of Guidelines for IEEE-SA meetings.
·
https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/preparslides.pdf
·
Has anyone not seen these Guidelines?
Everyone has seen the guidelines
·
CSD/PAR/Objectives timeline
·
CSD and PAR approved by EC only at a plenary.
·
David must circulate CSD and PAR 30 days in advance of plenary (EC requirement)
·
CSD, PAR, and Objectives also announced by David, 30 days in advance, to 802.3 working group
·
Comments received by 18h30 Tuesday, replies by 18h30 Wednesday,
·
Is there a pre-submission requirement?
Yes
·
Can we make decisions early in plenary, and then present at closing plenary?
No
·
Can we vote during the weekly meetings?
No voting
·
What does this mean?
·
If we don’t get approval in November, we have to wait until March
·
To attempt approval in November, we must agree (via Study Group vote) at Interim in Florida
·
Changes can be added during the motion
·
Can we call a meeting with 30 day notice, but does the meeting need to be face to face in order to vote?
·
Still need to have the material to back up the objectives and CSD. Contributions do not have to be made during the Study Group phase – we can reference previous material from ICAID
and CFI activities. Could use some contributions on Economic Feasibility.
·
Have to submit Objectives, CSD, and PAR by Oct 9.
·
Group believes it is possible to meet this deadline.
·
Study Group Objectives
·
Good progress – only one more TBD item related to a coexistence objective
·
See R06 located here:
·
https://owncloud.cablelabs.com/public.php?service=files&t=4951cd9a35045bade1c1b0729eecaac0
·
·
Call for Contributions
·
First Study Group meeting is:
·
September 14-15, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm
·
Contribution deadline: September 4, 2015 AOE
·
Send initial PDF and
indicate amount of time desiredto
c.knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
·
Contributions planned
·
Did not address
·
Miscellaneous
·
Extend meeting to two hours
·
Announce a F2F meeting now in case we need it. To meet 30 day advance notice, and to give time for plenary submission deadline, meeting should be during week of Sept 28.
Let’s make tentative dates Sept 28 (pm) and Sept 29 (all day). Does this work?
·
Can we schedule a F2F meeting during a conference call? Can acting Chair call a meeting? Curtis to ask David.
Table 1: Attendees
|
Name
|
Employer/Affiliation
|
|
Alan Brown
|
CommScope
|
|
Bill Powell
|
ALU
|
|
Bruce Chow
|
Corning
|
|
Barry Colella
|
Source Photonics
|
|
Curtis Knittle
|
CableLabs
|
|
Derrick Cassidy
|
BT
|
|
Duane Remein
|
Huawei
|
|
Ed Harstead
|
ALU
|
|
Fernando Villarruel
|
Cisco
|
|
Francois Menard
|
Aeponyx
|
|
Glen Kramer
|
Broadcom
|
|
Hesham ElBakoury
|
Huawei
|
|
Jorge Salinger
|
Comcast
|
|
Kevin Noll
|
TWC
|
|
Marek Hajduczenia
|
Bright House Networks
|
|
Mark Laubach
|
Broadcom
|
|
Michael Peters
|
Sumitomo
|
|
Mike Emmendorfer
|
Arris
|
|
Phil Miguelez
|
Comcast
|
|
Ryan Hirth
|
Broadcom
|
|
Ryan Tucker
|
Charter
|
|
Saif Rahman
|
Comcast
|
|
|