me respond to some of the issues that have been raised in this thread.
of all, while some may feel things are more definitive of what can and
can’t be done, what will or won’t be done, my take on proposing this IC
has been to not factor in any assumed outcomes. I have read these
response interpreting people’s words as their opinions, and frankly,
IMO, it illustrates the need for this open industry discussion.
the IC has been proposed in such a manner that it is not intended to be
disruptive to the defined actual project process. It is not proposing
changing any rules where an IC would have to be done or completed prior
to an actual CFI.
efforts I have been involved with in the past have never been closed or
private. The IC is merely another available tool for building
consensus towards a CFI by providing a forum for
industry discussion where awareness and participation of all potential
stakeholders can be facilitated through the IEEE, which I believe all
would agree, would help enable even broader reach and hence greater
only proposed deliverables is the historical records, i.e. meeting
notes & presentations. There is no decision outcome, though I
think the forum would allow us the opportunity to do non-binding straw
polls to get an assessment of the interest level. I believe it is fair
to say that a perceived outcome is that this IC will be helpful to a
potential future CFI.
rate question is perhaps one of the most explosive issues related to
this whole effort, and it suggests that we review our rules. Per the
IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules, Section 4.2 Formation –
SG is formed when enough interest has been identified for a particular
area of study within the scope of the WG. The first step in the process
is a call for interest.”
in regards to the rate question, while Steve used the phrasing “make
the rate decision during the CFI”, another way one might phrase the
intent of his statement is that the IC would enable the group to
evaluate the consensus of chooing 400G as the proposed area of study.
(Given my prior experience chairing the 2006-2007 HSSG, I hope some
will understand why I can see the value if a choice were made).
Traditionally, however, my recollection is that no motion for a new
speed project has ever stated the rate choice in the chartering
motion. Nonetheless, I personally wouldn’t see such a motion to be
prohibited by the rules, but one cannot look at this issue with tunnel
vision. The consensus of the group, IMO, will have an impact
on what motion might be decided to be proposed, how that motion might
be treated on the floor during the WG session, i.e. amendments, and
ultimately whether the motion passes. I can share from my prior
experience that there were many individuals who felt I should have
included 100G in the chartering motion for the last HSSG. Based on
on-going conversations related to those I spoke with however, my own
personal determination was that the inclusion of 100G would have been
disruptive from my ultimate goal at that time, however, which was
getting the Study Group formed. And while some have very strong
opinions regarding the current rate debate, which they have expressed,
I can personally say, that in organizing this IC, I have heard strong
opinions supporting differing points of views on the rate topicsubject.
(Another example I would argue for this IC!) And thus, I have proposed
the IC in such a way that no decisions are implied, the IC merely
provides a forum for the discussion and consensus building.
hope this provides the clarification that some individuals are looking
for the explanation. It’s definitely a good level set for those that
haven’t been through previous HSSG incarnations or who have not
participated in call-for-interest (CFI) developments.
aspect you mentioned (and I assume was a typo) is the statement, “make
the rate decision during the CFI.” As you and I (and many others) know,
the only decision that occurs with a CFI is whether or not to form a
study group. The CFI is made Monday afternoon at the 802.3 opening
session and voted upon at the closing session Thursday afternoon.
not mentioned in the email is whether or not the outcome of the
industry connections (IC) is going to be a CFI. For example, if the
intended outcome of the IC was stated as, “we will do a CFI for speed
X” then that has a different impact than, “we may do a CFI for the next
speed.” If the IC focus is to select the speed for the CFI and drive a
CFI development, then that makes sense for companies interested to
invest time and resources. If the IC effort is not going to select a
speed or lead to a CFI, then other than networking with colleagues at a
set place and time, this would result in companies investing time and
resources with nothing to show for it.
it was not 100% clear. All I’m asking for is clarification.
like to speak in favor of this IC effort – like many of the others, I
find that a lot of folks that I speak to, both inside of my company and
at industry events, standards meetings and conferences are quite eager
to see something get started on the “next rate”, and the level of
interest is something that I think justifies an activity to meet the
observed, quite correctly, that we haven’t done it this way in the past
several HSSGs in 802.3 history, so it is worth discussing what makes
this different. I think there are two things that justify a different
is that “pre-CFI” activities have generally been private efforts among
a (small) group of like-minded participants who do the work to justify
the project. If they meet during 802.3 meetings, they do so informally,
as a “flash mob”, using one of the meeting rooms but not advertising it
on the schedule. Given the large number of participants and companies
who are interested in this, however, it makes more sense to do it as an
open process, where anyone interested can join – to put the room on the
announced schedule of sessions at 802.3 meetings, and to have an open
email list that participants can join.
second reason, which became quite apparent during 802.3ba, is that
Ethernet is part of an ecosystem and does not stand by itself.
Particularly at these very high rates, we are beyond the point where
anyone will use such an interface anytime soon to connect to an end
station, so these interfaces are generally carrying very large
aggregates. For the part of the network where the next rate will play,
you need to be able to carry that new rate of Ethernet over OTN. It
could be that the IC effort puts together enough information to know
that we need a faster rate without knowing what that next rate should
be, but it is also be the case that what the IC learns will give good
information for what the next rate should be. If this occurs, it would
benefit the industry to make that decision early (e.g., to make the
rate decision during the CFI), since that would enable IEEE and ITU-T
work to proceed independently for each organization to work on
developing aligned standards in parallel.
I’ll be the first of those not participating in the BWA tutorial to
speak relative to this new IC effort.
question is being raised in the industry about what is the next speed
of Ethernet and when will that occur. Personally, I have been asked
that question ever since we started the previous Higher Speed Study
Group (HSSG) that resulted in IEEE Std. 802.3ba-2010. The Bandwidth
Assessment Ad Hoc helped explore and shed light on the drivers and
growth potential that exists. This was a great industry connections
effort that the IEEE 802.3 Working Group gets to put its stamp on.
harder to understand is how an industry connections effort leads into
the potential development of a call-for-interest (CFI). During my 15
years in 802.3, speed increments CFIs have always been referred to as
HSSG as the study group would pick the next higher speed. Is the
industry connections effort looking to build consensus on what the next
speed should be for the CFI and eliminate that selection process from
the study group phase of the project? Or, will the next speed consensus
built within the industry connection effort be irrelevant as the HSSG
will still be in charge of selection the next speed?
favor of developing the next HSSG when the time is right. I also
believe that the 802.3 Working Group should understand the process of
how an industry connections activity feeds into a CFI. This is new
territory for 802.3 and it would seem prudent to make sure there are no
false expectations or misperceptions.
Media and Community Professional
| Office of the CTO, Networking
office +1-512-723-7106, mobile +1-503-830-9366
I would like to express my full support for this
IC activity in line with previous support messages from Pete Anslow and
Huawei Technologies Ltd
European Research Center
Karspeldreef 4, 1101CJ Amsterdam
Tel: +31 20 4300 832
Mob: +31 6 21146286
Subject: Re: [802.3_DIALOG] New 'Higher
Speed Ethernet Consensus' Industry Connections activity
From: "Mark Nowell (mnowell)"
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:21:54 -0400
Reply-to: "Mark Nowell (mnowell)"
Thread-topic: [802.3_DIALOG] New 'Higher
Speed Ethernet Consensus' Industry Connections activity
I agree with Pete. We have been seeing growing
interest from numerous network operators covering SP, MSO and Data
Center spaces, to have clarity on when a next higher speed of Ethernet
would be available. Concern is that it will be available in time for
their projected network needs.
The sustained network bandwidth growth, driven
largely by the increase in users and the increase in user consumption
(such as video) is challenging network's ability to scale. Built into
this need for a speed step is also the challenge of ensuring a cost
At the last interim meeting a number of
interested people got together for an ad-hoc discussion around this
topic. At the close we took a straw poll to gauge interest in starting
things moving towards a next HSSG project. Results indicated that there
was strong interest in kicking this off.
In light of this, I support the
On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:01 AM, "Anslow, Peter"
> Thanks for initiating this new 'Higher
Speed Ethernet' Industry Connections activity.
> I have seen a tremendous amount of interest
in higher rates of Ethernet at conferences and workshops since 802.3ba
was completed, so I think that it is a good idea to start an activity
within 802.3 aimed at gathering consensus on a way forward towards a
future CFI on this topic.
> Pete Anslow | Senior Standards Advisor
> 43-51 Worship Street | London, EC2A 2DX, UK
> Direct +44 2070 125535 |
> From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@xxxxxx]
> Sent: 22 June 2012 08:44
> To: STDS-802-3-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [802.3_DIALOG] New 'Higher Speed
Ethernet Consensus' Industry Connections activity
> Dear Colleagues,
> I have received a request from John
D'Ambrosia to forward the following message to the IEEE 802.3 Working
Group reflector. As the IEEE 802.3 Working Group reflector is for
announcements only I have also CCed the IEEE 802.3 general discussion
reflector. Please therefore direct all discussions to the IEEE 802.3
general discussion reflector <stds-802-3-dilaog@xxxxxxxx>
> The IEEE 802.3 general discussion reflector
is an opt-in reflector so if you wish to discuss this issue please
subscribe to the IEEE 802.3 general discussion reflector, if you have
not already done so, at the URL <http://www.ieee802.org/3/dialog_reflector.html>,
or follow the discussion on the reflector email archive at the URL <http://www.ieee802.org/3/email_dialog/thrd1.html>.
> Best regards,
> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3 Working
> Per the July Plenary Meeting Announcement,
the Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment Ad Hoc will be seeking Working Group
approval of its report. In addition, I will be working with Pete
Anslow, Mark Nowell, Scott Kipp, and Peter Stassar to put on a tutorial
at the July Plenary <See http://www.ieee802.org/802_tutorials/2012-07/802-0712-TutorialFlyer-V1.pdf>.
> At the IEEE 802.3 May Interim I spoke at
most of the Task Force and Study Group meetings (all but MIBs and
Maintenance) regarding the future after the IEEE 802.3 BWA. I have been
working with a group of approximately 60 individuals on a new 'Higher
Speed Ethernet' Industry Connections activity. The proposed scope of
the activity would be to focus on building consensus related to the
next speed of Ethernet for wireline applications, which will be used
for the evaluation and possible development of a Call-For-Interest for
the next Higher Speed Study Group. Please note that unlike the prior
BWA activity, the output of this effort would be the historical
records, i.e. meeting notes & presentations, of the meetings held
by this Industry Connections activity.
> In the interest of full disclosure, an
Industry Connections activity Initiation Document (ICAID) was submitted
to the Industry Connections Committee (ICCom) for conditional approval,
conditional on IEEE 802 EC endorsement in July, at its June 8th
meeting. However, ICCom postponed recommending it approval until it has
been endorsed by IEEE 802 EC (the sponsoring group), and it was
indicated that ICCom will schedule a teleconference the Monday after
the plenary, which could then be submitted for a 10 day standards board
> Unfortunately, this will have an impact on
the formative activities related to the anticipated first meeting of
this new IC Activity, as well as the accompanying workshop, where the
BWA findings and next steps can be discussed.
> The other option, which I have chosen to
pursue, is to forward my request to the IEEE 802 EC for endorsement
prior to the July Plenary. This will enable ICCom's approval
recommendation sooner, as well as the final approval of the Standards
> I had already requested time at the July
opening agenda to give the IEEE 802.3 WG an update, but given the
timing of things, wanted to send this email out, so that the members of
the WG were aware of the status of my activities.
> Please feel free to contact me if you have
> John D'Ambrosia