Re: [802.3AZ] 802.3az Draft 2.0 comments 466 and 130 question
All,
I proposed the original value of 0x07 and upon review believe that it may have been a typographical error.
I agree that it should be 0x06.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Barrass (hbarrass) [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:44 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3AZ] 802.3az Draft 2.0 comments 466 and 130 question
Matt,
I can't remember any rationale for choosing 0x07 for 10GBASE-R. For that
reason, I proposed accepting comment #130.
Hugh.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Brown [mailto:mbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:26 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3AZ] 802.3az Draft 2.0 comments 466 and 130 question
Two comments are requesting consolidation of the control code value for
/LI/ in clauses 49 and 55. Clause 49 specifies 10GBASE-R /LI/ control
code is 0x07 and Clause 55 specifies 0x06. Comment 130 suggests changing
the 10GBASE-R /LI/ control code to 0x06, while comment 466 suggests
changing the 10GBASE-T /LI/ control code to 0x07.
For reference, the XGMII /LI/ control code is 0x06, the XGMII /I/
control code is 0x07, and the 10GBASE-R and 10GBASE-T control code for
/I/ is 0x00.
Based on the above information, the logical choice would be to use 0x06
for /LI/ for both 10GBASE-T and 10GBASE-R. This way the 10GBASE-T/R /LI/
control code value matches the XGMII /LI/ control code value. Also,
choosing 0x06 avoids confusing of the PCS /LI/ control code with the
XGMII /I/ control code.
To help understand the implications of either choice, I would like to
know what the rationale was for picking the control codes that are in
the current draft.
Thanks.
Matt Brown
AppliedMicro
mbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Office (613)254-6728
Cell (613)852-6728
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bennett [mailto:mjbennett@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3AZ] Draft 2.0 ballot result
Dear colleagues,
The result for initial Working Group Ballot on Draft 2.0 of IEEE
P802.3az is as follows:
Voters 208
Approve 94
Disapprove with comment 21
Disapprove without comment 0
Abstain 25
Returns 140
Response Rate 67.31%
Approval Rate 81.74%
Abstain Rate 17.86%
Since the Response Rate exceeded 50% by the closing date, the ballot
closed on time and since the Abstain Rate was < 30% the ballot is valid.
Since the Approval Rate exceeded 75%, the draft stands approved. I
would like to thank the voters for taking the time to review the draft.
This is a significant step in advancing the standard towards completion.
There were 483 comments submitted, 197 E/ERs and 286 T/TRs Depending on
how things go, we may have to extend the meeting time into the evening
in order to process the comments, although I hope that isn't necessary.
I look forward to a productive meeting in Chicago.
Best regards,
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael J. Bennett
Chair, IEEE P802.3az Energy Efficient Ethernet
+1 510 486 7913