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

Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action item for September 2012 meeting (draft structure)



Duane, 

As indicated before, it is the first pass based on what we know right now
and it will be polished as we progress with selection of baseline proposals
and have better understanding of individual functions and sublayers. I see
making CLT and CNU PMDs identical as simplification of the current subclause
outline and certainly not precluded at this time. 

As for specific changes you suggested:

- 95.6, indeed, it should reference RF and not optical; fixed in the
attached document
- 95.7.2, I stuck this as boilerplate for discussion. If indeed we find
there is nothing there to discuss, I am all fine to remove it. I just do not
understand enough about RF cabling plant to make a forward assumption that
it is inherently safe and there are no consideration we need to make here.
Your suggestion to follow EFM is a good one, though EFM was not defined for
coaxial cable, so we might want to have discussion before we assume there is
no need for RF safety subclause. 
- 95.8 - It was not an annex in 10G-EPON, even though all we did was
reference external cabling specs ... I would think we would do exactly the
same here i.e. reference cable specs for which the model is expected to
work. Nothing less, nothing more. 
- 96.2.3 - that is correct, most are expected to point to 10G-EPON (I would
hope, that all would be just pointers to 10G-EPON), but I do not know enough
to make this assumption right now. 
- 96.3.2.2 - please, do see the note in the text. If the reference to 64b66b
is offending, I will simply make that into a line code of choice to avoid
further discussion and looking for hidden meanings. 

Marek

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 27 July 2012 00:45
To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Duane Remein
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action item for September 2012 meeting (draft
structure)

Marek,
Thank you for being so proactive on this important task. However, I think we
should not get to far down this path nor should we make too many assumptions
and those we make should be clearly stated. Quite often you seem to be doing
this but not in all cases. For example you have obviously assumed that the
PMD at the CLT is different from the PMD at the CNU. Others have clearly
stated that these may in fact be identical. We need to be careful here that
the outline does not set us on a particular technical path; and that anyone
reading this outline is clearly aware that no technical decisions have yet
been made.
A few very minor comments:
95.6 probably will not discuss optical parameters, likewise the list of
parameters in this section are probably misleading at this point.
95.7.2	RF safety - do you really think the RF levels we will be dealing
with pose a safety risk? I've stood within 50-100' from a high power long
range air search radar without any obvious negative effects, I don't think
the RF levels we would produce will be a risk. In this vane I think
grounding and lightning will be issues we might need to consider in this
clause. Traditional Ethernet copper interfaces have never been exposed to
lightning, perhaps we can borrow something from the EFM copper clauses but a
quick scan didn't reveal anything useful.
95.8 - Shouldn't this be an annex? I don' think this will contain any
normative requirements but only describes the channel under which we defined
the standard.
96.2.3 - most of this will be references yes?
96.3.2.2/96.3.3.6	64B/66B Encode/Decode? Really? On what are you
basing this decision?

Best Regards,
Duane

FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC

-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:43 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Action item for September 2012 meeting (draft
structure)

Dear colleagues, 

Following the action item I took during July's plenary, I am sharing with
you the first look at the draft structure for EPoC, following closely on my
contribution hajduczenia_01_0712.pdf.  

Please note that it is a very preliminary proposal for the future document
structure and by no means final. I attempted to emulate existing 10G-EPON
clause structure as close as possible, while avoiding going into details of
how specific functions are implemented. We will have enough time to deal
with that later on.  

Please let me know if you have any specific suggestions of changes or just
comments. I will try to keep the document updated based on received
feedback. 

Regards

Marek

________________________________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

Attachment: EPoC_1209_hajduczenia_02_R2.docx
Description: EPoC_1209_hajduczenia_02_R2.docx