I do want to clarify or comment on a few things in your message below.
I agree that there is no value in hashing over the dynamics of the September meeting, but I do want to reinforce that as a leadership team managing a very large and busy project we have prioritized transparency in how we plan and manage the workloads in the
meetings. We will consistently be following the same approach for the meeting next week. We cannot insist that everyone tracks all of this, but I would encourage folks to pay attention at the openings of the meetings where we explain it all and solicit any
questions. We then update the group as things inevitably change and communicate that as well.
Of course, anyone can reach out to us directly to for any clarifications.
I’m looking forward to some good discussion on the topics next week. I know that people have been doing some work in their labs, but we unfortunately have not as much contributed data next week as I was hoping. Nevertheless, we’ll work with what we have and
see what decisions we can make now or whether we defer to future meetings.
You do comment below that the Tx functional test was adopted based on actual lab testing and I need to comment on that. Based on TF consensus, the well-supported proposal was adopted, but there was no data presented into the Task Force. This was a concern
raised by individuals in the Task Force, but I did advocate for it to be adopted, based on the strength of the support, and so that the test procedure could be defined clearly to allow validation testing to be consistently performed. Many spoke that they
would be bringing in data because of this decision. As I said, above, there has been less than I hoped or anticipated.
With regards to the "Proposed Response" this is a starting point for discussion based on the editorial team making their best effort. We resolve the comments based on the direction of the Task Force participants and this often changes the disposition from the
proposed response. With regards to my comments (#136-139) where I’m uniformly putting pressure on each test, the editorial team is similarly uniformly providing something consistent in the “Proposed response" field as a starting point with the most important
aspect of the Proposed Response indicating the Final Response would be pending review and discussion by the participants. With that said, I remain in awe of our editorial team's hard work and diligence in what they do for this project.
With these TQM tests, like other topics assigned to the common track, they collectively touch on many of the expertise areas in our Task Force from optical parametrics, to DSP and SerDes design, to PCS functionality, and to system and module design. We will
be looking for broad review and participation in this discussion to help us find the best path forward.
I’m looking forward to the discussions next week.
Cisco Confidential
From: Chris Cole <chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 10:04 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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”.
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
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