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

Re: [802.3_10SPE] comment r02-14



Hi Group,

Why was 802.3cg started ? I went and looked at the CFI:

- Ethernet adoption is happening, but there is a gap at the edge
- Existing market is fragmented, "Too many fieldbus variants"
- Installation complexity
- Multiple standards and certification bodies

The common theme was that we wanted a single standard that "just worked". Like 4-pair Ethernet today.

Did we succeed ? I leave that as an excercise to the reader.

Back the the issue at hand: connectors.
The goal of this standard is to create interoperability between devices. If I can't even get then them to mechanically connect, interoperability has already failed.
Imagine that in stead of all RJ45 connectors we would have 4 different types in common use...
For such a new market, it would seem logical that 802.3cg would mandate a connector.
For those industries where it is impossible to use a connector, they can opt not to. For those industries multi-vendor / end-user interoperability was not the main concern in the first place.

I strongly believe that if the market does not converge to a single connector, this standard will not achieve a large market share. It will simply become yet another set of fieldbuses.
If 802.3 does not mandate the connector.... then who will ?

The best option
Is for the group to pick ONE connector for generic use and make it a requirement. Special industries are of course free to pick whatever other connecting mechanism they like. (Just like in 4-pair Ethernet).

The not worst option
Is to not make any statement about connectors at all (current draft).
That way we make clear that another body, or de-facto industry choices, will determine the connector.
I don't really like this because there is no way to know where this will go and whether or not it will fragment the market.

For sure we should not use 802.3 as an "infomercial" where we use empty standard language like "may use XYZ connector" as a sort of misleading hint to readers of the spec.
From a standards language viewpoint "may use connector X" is completely meaningless. ANY connector may be used in absence of a requirement to use a specific connector.

Given where we are in the process, I don't see us converging to a required connector.
Hence I would support Valerie's proposal to maintain the text as-is.

Kind regards,

Lennart

On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 22:41 +0000, Amrik Bains (ambains) wrote:

Hi Colleagues,

 

I will not be attending Milwaukee meeting, but wanted to suggest different remedy to comment r02-14 on clause 146.8.1/147.9.1  by  Christopher Diminico (Please see comment at the end of the email) which suggest to add IEC 63171-1 to 8023cg_D3dp2, but does not include IEC 63171-6.   

 

We have had long discussions, various proposals, straw polls, motions and have built consensus, but not fully satisfying  everyone.

I also think IEEE 802.3 should provide some direction  as “may be used” for the eco-system to develop MDI connector/interface. This means we should not over restrict MDI connector by tying to different applications such as  – Automotive, Industrial or Enterprise or any other application as in 8023cg_D3dp1 CL 146.8.1 and CL 147.9.1.

 

Number of task force attendees from  OEMs, Cable, Test Equipment and Connector industries drafted text and built consensus that allows eco-system to use  MDI connector as required by their application built conscious in the sections below.

 

“8023cg_D3dp0 CL 146.8.1  page 153 line 6 to page 155 line 7 AND

8023cg_ D3dp CL 147.9.1 page 200 line 17 to page 202 line 54”

Note: IEC 610176-125 reference needs to be changed to IEC 63171-6  

 

 

Suggested Remedy

 

Take text and figures

“8023cg_D3dp0 CL 146.8.1  page 153 line 6 to page 155 line 7”

 

Insert in 802cg_D3dp2 CL 146.8.1 page 171 line 46 But correct reference IEC 610176-125 TO IEC 63171-6. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as need

……………………………..

 

Take the test and figures

8023cg_ D3dp0 CL 147.9.1 page 200 line 17 to page 202 line 54”

 

Insert in 802cg_D3dp2 CL 146.9.1 page 220 line 45, But correct reference IEC 610176-125 TO IEC 63171-6. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed

 

Regards,

Amrik Bains

 

 

 

Cl 146 SC 146.8.1 P 179 L 1 # r02-14

Comment Type TR

*** Comment submitted with the file 101659700003-diminico_3cg_01_0819.pdf attached ***

The continued success of BASE-T technology is largely predicated

on leveraging the cost-effectiveness and plug-and-play simplicity

ensured by compatibility at the MDI. We need to be forward

thinking in developing a compatible user interface for BASE-T1.

The MDI is to specify mechanical compatibility and electrical

specifications not EMC conformance.

Suggested Remedy

146.8.1 MDI connectors -Page 179, Line 1 add text;

Connectors meeting the mechanical requirements of IEC 63171-1

may be used as the mechanical interface to the balanced cabling.

The plug connector is used on the balanced cabling and the MDI

jack connector on the PHY.

Re-instate IEC 63171-1 plug and jack figures from D3.1. with

text below.

Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed.

The IEC 63171-1 plug and jack are depicted (for informational

use only) in Figure 146-29 and Figure 146-30 respectively,

and the mating interface is depicted in Figure 146-31.

The assignment of PMA signals to connector contacts for

PHYs are given in Table 146-8.

147.9.1 MDI connectors -Page 227, Line 1 add text;

Connectors meeting the mechanical requirements of IEC 63171-1

may be used as the mechanical interface to the balanced cabling.

The plug connector is used on the balanced cabling and the MDI

jack connector on the PHY.

Re-instate IEC 63171-1 plug and jack figures from D3.1. with text

below. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed.

The IEC 63171-1 plug and jack are depicted (for informational

use only) in Figure 147-21 and Figure 147-22 respectively and

the mating interface is depicted in Figure 147-23. The

assignment of PMA signals to connector contacts for PHYs are

given in Table 147-3. These connectors should support link

segment DCR characteristics for 1.02 mm (18 AWG) to

0.40 mm (26 AWG) in Table 146B-1.

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1