|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Dear 802.3 colleagues,
I initially sent it to the wrong reflector.
Kind regards, also on behalf of Pete Anslow
This email is intended to provide some further exposure to several unresolved comments on optical subclauses in IEEE 802.3bv, especially because of the intent of bv to request the 802.3WG for approval at today’s Closing Plenary to go for Sponsor Ballot from the San Diego meeting.
This email is written on my behalf and of Pete Anslow, with whom I share similar concerns.
There are unresolved comments to bv regarding what we feel is an insufficiently validated optical specification to ensure multi-vendor compatibility.
This is especially important because of the claimed application for home users.
We strongly feel that home users should be protected by an extremely robust specification.
Our comments specifically addressed the need to validate the optical interface specification by testing, showing that devices meeting the specification would work in the application and that devices not meeting the specification would not work in the application.
As far as we are aware this testing has not been done and only simulation results have been presented which we feel are an inadequate validation of the specification.
Additionally, while the draft standard calls out a particular optical fiber specification not all fibers compliant to this specification will operate satisfactorily so the draft standard contains additional requirements, which are not realistically measurable by consumer end users.
Kind regards, also on behalf of Pete Anslow,
Peter Stassar, 施笪安
Technical Director, 技术总监
Huawei Technologies Ltd, 华为技术有限公司
European Research Center, 欧洲研究所
Karspeldreef 4, 1101CJ Amsterdam
Tel: +31 20 4300 832
Mob: +31 6 21146286