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

Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site



Also focus, keeping with the original scope we have agreed upon. 802.3bn is a PHY standard with minimum argumentation MPCP; this limit our ability to add new futures, however, at the same time it ensures the EPoC remains in the EPON ecology zone. If we keep adding and debating on new futures, trying to find various works around (minimum argumentation),  it will only cause delay and make the standard overly complicated. Remember, Ethernet as dominant in our network today started as a best effort protocol. If we had required Ethernet as it is today to start with, it may never get here.

I agree that we should sort out the relationship and dependence on various functional blocks and features, we are gradually getting there. I see that the channel bonding and generations will be the next issue; besides its own problem, its relation with other functions, such MMP in TDD could be a concern.

Eugene



From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:27 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site

Hugh,

Great summary of the IEEE process and my respect to you for addressing the key points so clearly.

We have seen already projects within 802.3 WG that took a long time to develop consensus but when it was finally achieved and the appropriate number of baseline proposals was adopted, the progress was swift and bounded only by the minimum number of required draft circulations. We have also seen projects that were developed in a record time, primarily because there was no doubt as to what needed to be done and everybody pulled in the same direction.

In P802.3bn project, I think our main problem until last meeting was the lack of solid consensus on key items as well as the number of topics to look at and creep of new features (still ongoing). I believe that once we get the basic decisions out of the way and get a better idea on how individual functional blocks within the EPoC PMD are to interact with each other, progress will be swift. What was missing at the last meeting though was decision on the order of interaction between individual functional blocks - this is something we should try to remedy as soon as possible, to give individual contributors a better idea on e.g., where FEC is to be located (PCS, PMA, PMD ?).

Regards

Marek

From: Hugh Barrass (hbarrass) [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2013 2:09 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site

Jorge,

The "IEEE spec process" is not causing delays. The Task Force has not reached the part of the process that is (frustratingly) slow - ballot cycles. The problem with delays in the task force can be summed up with one word - people.

There is no reason why the meeting should be a "2-3 day marathon to cram as many things as possible." If the people in the task force wished to make progress, the meeting would consist of 2 or 3 presentations that capture the consensus  of the group and some motions to adopt these baselines. It should  be expected that the time between task force meetings should be spent constructively by task force members discussing, negotiating and (crucially) agreeing on issues. Anyone who hopes to persuade technical opponents purely by bringing a long presentation to the task force is a fool. At this stage in the process, every presentation that is worth presenting should have a list of supporters that capture the bulk of the task force demographics.

Unfortunately, there is no chain of command in an IEEE process. There is nothing that can be done to force the people involved to reach the agreements necessary. Until and unless the people start working towards the same goals, the process will seem (and be) frustratingly long and pointless. Once the people (and their attitudes) are aligned then the process will move as rapidly as feasible - given the nature of a recognized international standard.

Hugh.

From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:11 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site

Yes, that's very true.

I guess I am just referring to getting the requirements for building the equipment, which for the IEEE standard (in this case at least for comparison) would end up taking about twice as long. I also know that the equipment is built in parallel with the development of the IEEE standard, but that happens with DOCSIS as well (for example, D3.1 SOC development is already in progress).

To that end, I believe that there are things that could be done, at least from my perspective, to streamline the IEEE process. For example, I see the IEEE process as a 2-3 day marathon to cram as many things as possible every 2 months, while I see the DOCSIS process as a continuous stream of work and decisions. Wouldn't it be possible to take the best of both worlds, and get an international standard but with a smoother and faster organizational approach?

Jorge

From: <Jones>, Douglas Jones <Douglas_Jones3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Douglas_Jones3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:35 AM
To: Comcast User <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, EPoC Task Force <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: updated technical decisions on web site

IEEE does not write specifications, rather, it creates international standards.

CableLabs creates specifications for the North American cable industry.  For a CableLabs specification to become an internatinoal standard, it would have to go through both the ANSI process (likely SCTE) and then an international standards process.  These would easily tack on a few years.  With that perspective, the IEEE process looks quick.



dj

From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:01 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site

Dear EPoC TF colleagues,

I know I was not able to attend the meeting last week to comment on the new timeline, so I recognize that in some way this a Monday quarterbacking comment. But, I can't help but express my frustration with the IEEE Spec process. According to this new schedule the standard will now take almost 3 years! If you just counted the time from the TF to the Sponsor Ballot, as I heard from many that we should count, this is still just shy of 2 years. I believe that things won't happen any faster than the schedule shows, and further believe that they will quite possibly take longer.

By comparison, the DOCSIS 3.1 spec, which I believe to be quite more complex, will take about 1 year from start to finish. In fact, as things look we'll likely have Certified products before the EPoC standard is completed.

I think I have heard all the reasons why the IEEE standards take as long as they do (e.g., open process, better specs, its people and not companies that contribute and vote, etc., etc.). But, this process just does not keep with the pace of our times. There is got to be something that can be fundamentally changed in the IEEE standard process to make it more streamlined.

I would really like to look into what can be done, discuss options, and see if we can find a way to improve on the timeline. And I have some thoughts about this already, some of which It hope we could be applied already, now, for EPoC.

So, if I am not the only one wanting to get the process to improve its velocity, then I would be the first to volunteer to try to do so.

Regards,
Jorge

From: Mark Laubach [mailto:laubach@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:21 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site

Dear IEEE P802.3bn EPoC PHY Task Force participants,

Based on the technical motions approved at this meeting (28 motions), the list of technical decisions on our website has been updated to include each of these motions.  Please see:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bn/public/decisions/decisions.html

In addition, the Task Force timeline was updated as of today.  Please see:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bn/public/tf_timeline_updated_130321.pdf

Yours truly,
Mark Laubach, Chair,
IEEE P802.3bn Task Force

Broadband Communications Group
Broadcom Corporation
1351 Redwood Way
Petaluma, CA, 94954
  [cid:image001.jpg@01CE2BA3.04549A00]
Tel: +1.707.792.9093
Cell: +1.650.996.2219


________________________________

<="" p="">

________________________________

<="" p="">

________________________________

<="" p="">

________________________________

________________________________

<="" p="">

________________________________________________________________________

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

JPEG image