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

Re: [802.3_B400G] [802.3dj] Proposed Responses & Bucket1 Posted

Dear 802.3dj Participants,

Since proposed responses to comments against D2.2 have been published, it's important to learn from the last comment resolution cycle.

Comment #399 was submitted against D2.1 proposing to add a jitter test to Tx optical specs. Over the previous year and half, during multiple unofficial SMF concensus building calls, no optics expert supported the test, which is reflected in no support in the proposal. 

Going into September Interim meeting, the proposed response was:

"PROPOSED REJECT
There has been some discussion on the clock jitter impact and output jitter spec in previous meetings. However, no obvious consensus has been observed, partly due to lack of strong evidence showing the necessity of adding such parameter. Evidence or data is also lacking to support defining the values of the proposed parameter.  The proposed remedy provides detailed changes for implementation, which could be a good starting point of further discussion.  Further technical contribution is encouraged to move forward."

During a joint comment resultion meeting, based on a nearly even split vote, the response was changed to ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE and jitter test was added. Afterwards, when concerns were raised about such an important change being forced onto the optics industry, it was pointed out that if the issue was so important, opposition should have been better organized going into and at the meeting. This ignores that given everything that happened up to then, there was no expectation that the outcome would be any different than over the previous year and half.

This is water under the bridge, and all that we can do is apply lessons learned going forward. 

The Optical Tx Functional Test was adopted with overwhelming optics industry support, based on actual lab testing by all optics vendors and end users working on 200G/lane optics. We have now seen examples of this methodology published in public forums, for example ECOC and OCP.  We expect this to be the foundation of 200G/lane measurements going forward.

Since multiple Tx Tests were added into D2.1, the Optics Track Chair, during unofficial SMF concensus building calls, proposed removing the added Tx tests if supporting data was not brought in. While only some of the added Tx Tests critically need this, the approach was applied to all of them. In line with that, comment #138 has been submitted against D2.2, proposing to remove the Optical Tx Functional Test. 

"Suggested Remedy (#138)
Remove the changes made due to the adoption of the TFSEM methodology into D2.1 and
modifications into D2.2. Delete subclause 180.9.9 and associated references.  Apply the equivalent changes to
clauses 181, 182 and 183.
A background presentation will be provided.
PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE."

Normally, there would be zero expectation that comment #138 has any chance of getting adopted. However, given the experience with #399, we can not take a reasonable outcome for granted. This is especially worrisome, given the PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE which makes no sense since there is no supporting material and no optics industry support. 

Most important is building awereness among our colleagues in logic and electrical tracks, about the importance of a functional optical test to the optics industry. Please take the time before the meeting, to discuss with your optics colleagues so that when you vote, you have the full picture. 

Thank you

Chris

From: Kent Lusted <00003dd2e253c6a1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 6:48 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_B400G] [802.3dj] Proposed Responses & Bucket1 Posted
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
The P802.3dj Task Force Chair delegated to me the announcement of the proposed response reports and “bucket 1”. 
 
Proposed responses to comments submitted during the second Working Group ballot of IEEE P802.3dj D2.2 were posted (see:   https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/comments/index.html [ieee802.org]).  Please note that there are four files:
 
·       All Initial Proposed Responses listed by Clause –   https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/comments/D2p2/8023dj_D2p2_comments_proposed_clause.pdf [ieee802.org]
 
·       All Initial Proposed Responses listed by ID –   https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/comments/D2p2/8023dj_D2p2_comments_proposed_id.pdf [ieee802.org]
 
·       Proposed Responses Placed in “Bucket 1” by Clause –   https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/comments/D2p2/8023dj_D2p2_comments_proposed_clause_bucket1.pdf [ieee802.org]
 
·       Proposed Responses Placed in “Bucket 1” by ID –   https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/comments/D2p2/8023dj_D2p2_comments_proposed_id_bucket1.pdf [ieee802.org]
 
 
 
 
Note to all commenters and participants –
 
In the interest of devoting as much meeting time as possible to perceived issues, the editorial team was encouraged to make liberal use of “Bucket 1” for comments.  
 
During the P802.3dj Task Force meeting, a motion is anticipated on Monday, 10 November 2025 to accept the proposed responses to comments in “Bucket 1.”  Please note any comments withdrawn from “Bucket 1” will be excluded explicitly in this motion. 
 
Additionally, the editorial team may continue to refine the proposed responses to comments that are not contained in bucket1 and may provide updated proposed response comment reports.  These updates, if made, will be announced via the email reflector. 
 
My thanks to all individuals for their review of the document, and Matt Brown and our editorial team for their diligent efforts in responding.
 
Regards,
-Kent
 
IEEE P802.3dj Task Force Recording Secretary
 
 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1