Re: [802.3_OMEGA] [EXTERNAL]--Re: [802.3_OMEGA] Motion #3 for PMD adopti

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

Takahashi-san,

I do not agree with your assertion; all IEEE Standards refer to IEC Standards for fiber cabling and the launch condition into the fiber. ISO is specifying general requirements and test methods for optical harnesses for automotive communication.

I am not aware of any informative requirements in IEEE Standards

For the launch, we have always specified an encircled flux launch:

This launch is defined at the output of 2m of fiber.

For fiber optic cabling, we have always referenced IEC and provide specific detail not only on the IEC reference but also the details of the fiber itself.

1GbE, Clause 38:

“The fiber optic cable requirements are satisfied by the fibers specified in IEC 60793-2:1992. Types A1a (50/125 µm multimode), A1b (62.5/125 µm multimode), and B1 (single-mode) with the exceptions noted in

Table 38–12.”

10GbE, Clause 52:

“The fiber optic cable shall meet the requirements of IEC 60793-2 or the requirements of Table 52–25 where they differ for fiber types A1a (50/125 μm multimode), A1b (62.5/125 μm multimode), B1.1 (dispersion unshifted single mode), or B1.3 (low water peak single mode).”

100GbE, Clause 95:

If you need any additional information, please feel to reach out to me.

Best regards,

Steve

Steven E. Swanson

Senior Standards Manager

Distinguished Associate

Global Technology & Industry Standards

MT&E

Corning Optical Communications

4200 Corning Place

Charlotte, NC 28216

m 607-725-1129

swansonse@xxxxxxxxxxx

Standards are a bridge between markets and technologies; whoever controls the bridge controls the future…

From: POF-P_Takahashi <pof-promotion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:06 AM
To: STDS-802-3-OMEGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL]--Re: [802.3_OMEGA] Motion #3 for PMD adoption. Understanding the negative votes.

Dear Ruben-san,

I have another reason to oppose the motion #3.

Definition of the optical fiber category shall be left to the ISO.

I think that the MDI chapter of IEEE 802.3cz only needs to specify the characteristics of the optical signal at the launch and output points of an optical fiber.

The type of optical fiber may needs to be specifically determined in order to calculate the link budget, however, it can be described in the document as informative.

I would appreciate it if you would consider my idea.

Best regards,

Satoshi

2021/10/13 6:13、Rubén Pérez-Aranda <rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx>のメール:

Dear Colleagues,

Today, in the 802.3cz Interim Meeting we have succeeded in the adoption of 4 baseline proposals (i.e. 50G PCS/PMA,

EEE/LPI, Loopback modes, and BER test mode). However, the most important motion, the one to adopt a PMD failed and

most of the negative voters did not provide any reason for explaining their vote, and what for me is more important, they did

not indicate what should be changed in that PMD baseline proposal to be accepted by them.

Today we voted the only one PMD proposal presented until now that is technically complete, fulfills the 100% of the objectives

and is 100% consistent with the CSD responses. The other PMD proposals (i.e. GIPOF and Si-Photonics) are not technically

complete (at least today), and either do not fulfill none of the objectives or only some of them. I understand that someone can vote

against option “A”, when he/she offers an option “B”, being both A and B complete and consistent with the objectives and CSD.

However, I can't understand a negative vote against option A with nothing to offer (at least today) and with no arguments.

Which part of the motion text and referenced contributions should be changed, with proposed remedy, in order the motion being accepted?

Should the PMD based on OM3 + 980nm VCSEL not be included in 802.3cz draft and the task force should wait until other PMD options are complete and meet (new) objectives? Why (technical reason)?

Should we have also included the other PMD options in the motion, even if they are incomplete and inconsistent with objectives, going against CSD?

Did the motion text or the referenced contribution prevent the adoption of future PMD options like GIPOF and Si-Photonics (provided the objectives and CSD are revised first)?

Therefore, I kindly ask the following individuals to provide arguments for supporting their negative vote against the motion #3

for PMD adoption of today. These arguments may be used to identify gaps in understanding the procedures and building

consensus in the future.

Tadashi Takahashi, Nitto Denko Corporation
Kazuya Takayama, Nitto Denko Corporation
Kenji Yonezawa, AGC
Hidenari Hirase, AGC
Yuji Watanabe, AGC
Satoshi Takahashi, POF Promotion
Ichiro Ogura, Petra
Taiji Kondo, MegaChips
Hideki Isono, Fujitsu Optical Components
Kenneth Jackson, Sumitomo

Thank you and best regards,

Rubén Pérez-Aranda

KDPOF

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

****************************************************

Satoshi TAKAHASHI

POF Promotion

1-10-28-501 Kugenuma-Fujigaya, Fujisawa

Kanagawa 251-0031, Japan

Phone: +81-80-5026-9433

Fax.: +81-466-50-5884

E-mail: pof-promotion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

****************************************************

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

Re: [802.3_OMEGA] [EXTERNAL]--Re: [802.3_OMEGA] Motion #3 for PMD adoption. Understanding the negative votes.