Thank you, George.
Dear Task Force members,
I would like to propose re-opening comment #I-13 to make an additional adjustment to Figure 190-4. I believe the “Reed-Solomon(128, 122, 8) Forward Error Correction Encoder” block should more accurately be labeled “RS-FEC(128,122) Encoder”. This is consistent with other text in the draft.
Hopefully, this is a quick and easy adjustment. I appreciate everyone’s efforts to ensure the next recirculation ballot is super clean - Val
Valerie Maguire, BSEE
602-228-7943 mobile
From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 3:55 PM
To: STDS-802-3-SPEP2P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_SPEP2P] agenda for March 10 plenary meeting - reopening of comment
All –
In reviewing the editorial changes, there is one issue that the editorial team has found that should be corrected which, in my judgement, is a little more than I’m comfortable with under editorial license.
I am therefore planning to start the recirculation March 11 or 12, and am announcing that on the agenda for the March 10 meeting at the IEEE 802.3 Plenary, I will entertain a motion to reopen comment 33 in the database.
The issue is that the while the comment response corrected the Technology Category listed as “0” to be “2”, doing so created a conflict – 2 was a reserved value.
As a result, Table 98D-2 is supposed to specify the encodings for the downshift preference. (98D.2.7 states Downshift makes use of a configurable list of link settings to specify the preferred order used in downshift/upshift. Table 98D-2 specifies enumerations for these link settings.)
There are several possible errors which need to be resolved:
- The first body row indicates ALL values of type for Technology Category 2 mapping to (generically) to BASE-T1L, which isn’t an encoding for a preference.
- Body rows two through five now appear to be correct, indicating the various selectable BASE-T1L PHYs
- Body row seven now also appears correct, reserving Type values of 4 through 31.
- Body row 8 appears to be in error, reserving Technology Categories 1-7, all types, which would contradict the assignments on Technology Category 2.
My proposal would be:
Replace the first body row with: Technology Category: 0-1 , Type: ---- , Description: Reserved
And
Change the Technology Category in the last row from 1-7 to 3-7.
Looking at this, Technology Category 0 is NULL, which includes all the legacy mode assignments for PHYs, including 100BASE-T1L (Table 98B-1b) would be reserved, and unavailable to use (at this time) for downshift. (Categories 1 & 3-7 as well, but these are unassigned in Table 98B-2)
Experts should consider whether they would want downshift to only be able to use preference on Category 2, or whether they would want to enable preference on Category 0 use for BASE-T1L as well – in which case we would want to be able to encode at least a subset of the PHYs in that set.
If there are other comments that anyone would wish to reopen or other changes you see need to be made to the draft, please let me know prior to next Thursday (5 March 2026).
-george
George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Chair, IEEE P802.3dg 100BASE-T1L Task Force
2nd Vice Chair, IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
CME Consulting, Inc.
1-310-920-3860
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1