Monday, July 7th, 1997, P802.3z Task Force Plenary Opening Session 1) Chair, Howard Frazier, calls meeting to order, 4:30 PM. 2) Introductions were skipped since the meeting followed the 802.3 meeting with same attendees previously introduced. 3) Selected recording secretary, Walter Thirion. 4) P802.3z Status Report - Presentation by Howard Frazier - Draft D3.0 updated and distributed on 6/24/97 via Web site and mail 5) Call for additions/modifications to the agenda by Howard Frazier - None submitted 6) Motion to approve the agenda - Moved: Bob Grow - Second: Tom Dineen - Motion passed by acclamation - Hard copy agenda distributed by Howard Frazier 7) Standards Development Time Line - Presentation by Howard Frazier - No change to timeline targets - Plan to ask 802.3 for formal Working Group Ballot at this July Plenary - Howard Frazier emphasized need for attention to detail and formal documentation and procedures during the last legs of the process. 8) Email Reflector and FTP/WEB Site - Presentation by Howard Frazier - Do not distribute the password - Noted separate reflectors for PMD and 1000Base-T i) stds-802-3-z-pmd@mail.ieee.org ii) stds-802-3-1000base-t@mail.ieee.org - Show of hands on WEB use for obtaining standard was nearly unanimous - Comment from Denis Beaudoin on difficulty of getting to WEB URL address directly. Others had experienced this same problem. - Howard Frazier took an action item to talk to the WEB administrator in IEEE to resolve. 9) Comment Submission and Resolution - Presentation by Howard Frazier - Reminder of comment form on WEB site - Encouraged use of on-line form - Only one comment per form. Do not aggregate comments on a single form. - All submitted comments should receive confirmation - Question from Jonathan Thatcher prompted explanation that review of all comments will not be available until after comment submission period closes. - (In his sternest voice) Howard Frazier reviewed comment submission DOs and DON'Ts - Reviewed an example of a proper comment submission from Paul Kolesar. 10) Task Force Objectives Overview - Presentation by Howard Frazier - No changes to Objectives for several months - Note that we may have to revisit distance for fiber - Reminder that we must meet 802.3z Working Group Objectives to go to Working Group Ballot 11) Big Ticket Items - Presentation by Howard Frazier - Big Ticket items as listed in the agenda - Howard Frazier stressed need to close all Big Ticket items at this meeting in order to get to Working Group Ballot - Howard Frazier asked Ben Brown to inform PMD group about resolution to Big Ticket item 5 that was decided upon in the morning meeting prior to the P802.3z plenary - No additional items added {NOTE: THE SUMMARY OF BIG TICKET ITEMS PRESENTED HERE REFLECTS THE FINAL STATUS OF EACH ITEM AS OF THE CLOSING SESSION ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON} ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 1 Title: Effective Modal Bandwidth specifications for multimode fiber Affected Clauses: 38 Owner: J. Thatcher Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: Need to come up with values for EMB for both 50 and 62.5 micron fiber at both short and long wavelength. Plan: The tables in clause 38 may need adjustment, and we must walk out of the meeting with absolute clarity on the format, composition, and contents of the tables. Resolution: PMD sub-task force has unanimously accepted a detailed proposal for specification and measurement of Modal Bandwidth. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 2 Title: Fiber link distances Affected Clauses: 38 Owner: J. Thatcher Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: As a consequence of item 1, the fiber link distances for MMF may change. The resulting distances may fall below the formal and informal objectives we have set for this project. Plan: We will need to decide whether the distances are adequate, and whether changes to the objectives are necessary. Resolution: Per resolution of item #1, all essential tables regarding link distances have been updated and unanimously approved by the PMD sub-task force. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 3 Title: GMII timing parameters Affected Clauses: 35 Owner: B. Grow Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: A couple of parties have expressed concern about the rise/fall time restrictions on the GMII data signals, and would like to include a template for the data signals that allows a slower rise/fall time. Plan: The GMII sub task force will review a complete proposal and decide whether to make a change. Resolution: Modifications to 35.4 were agreed to which removed tr and tf specifications for data, slightly relaxing the requirements. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 4 Title: GMII management register review Affected Clauses: 22,35 Owner: B. Grow Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: Now that the GMII management registers have been folded back into clause 22, we have to go through the wording carefully to see what we missed and what needs refinement. Plan: Careful review Resolution: Tech review is complete, further editorial review may be necessary. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 5 Title: RPAT, CRPAT, PRBS, Jitter test patterns for annex 36A Affected Clauses: 36, 36A, 38, 39 Owner: J. Thatcher Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: Must review the Jitter test patterns described in annex 36A because the motions concerning these patterns which we adopted at the last meeting were contradictory. We need to decide whether the Jitter test patterns in draft D3/Annex 36A are adequate and whether they meet the spirit, if not the letter, of the motions from Ft. Lauderdale. Plan: Review in PCS and PMD sub task forces. Resolution: Review completed in PCS sub-task force. Pending motion in 802.3z Task Force meeting. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 6 Title: Impact of Bit Errors on Auto Negotiation Affected Clauses: 36, 37 Owner: R. Taborek Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: Cases have been found in which bit errors can induce a restart of Auto Negotiation. We need to reach a decision as to whether this warrants a change and, if so, what the change should be. Plan: Consider in PCS/AN sub-task force. Resolution: Resolved by PCS sub-task force through inclusion of Loss_Of_Sync timeout. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 7 Title: Clause 39 Test Procedures Affected Clauses: 39 Owner: J. Thatcher/E. Grivna Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: A draft of a set of test procedures for clause 39 has been drafted. Since this is a fairly large piece of new information, it must be reviewed and a decision must be reached on whether/how/where to include it in the next draft. Plan: Review in PMD sub-task force. Resolution: Proposed text approved by acclamation in PMD sub-task force. ___________________________________________________________________________ Item: 8 Title: PICs, PICs, PICs Affected Clauses: 22, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 Owner: Grow/Taborek Thatcher /Haddock Meeting Time: Meeting Place: Status: CLOSED Description: Got to review the PICs. Plan: Each clause which has a PICs should have someone reviewing it before the meeting, to produce a list of changes which may affect "shall" statements in the body of the clause. The reviewer(s) should also look for options and dependencies. Resolution: PICs review has been performed. PICs in satisfactory condition pending motion on Clause 36. ___________________________________________________________________________ 12) Distribution of Documents - Documents distributed by Howard Frazier - Copy of minutes - Draft copy of P802.3z/D3.0 13) Overview of P802.3z/D3.0 presented by Howie Johnson - This is 1st complete draft with all Clauses/Tables/etc. included - Explanation of edit marks and special symbols - Note of new 36.A annex to cover diagnostic patterns - Rename of Link Configuration to Auto Negotiation - In depth review of Clauses 1-6, and Clause 22 plus brief remarks about rest of Clauses - Reviewed PICs, what they are and what they mean - Discussed comment forms and how they would be used 14) Introduction of all clause editors by Howie Johnson 15) Review of sub-task force breakout schedule and room assignments by Howard Frazier 16) Meeting closed at approximately 6:15 PM pending sub-task force break out sessions. ___________________________________________________________________________ System/MAC/Repeater/Management Sub Task Force meeting 7/8/97 The System/MAC/Repeater/Management Sub Task Force met for one hour and 15 minutes beginning at 1:00 pm on 7/8/97. Due to the very small volume of comments received on clauses 1-5, 30, 41, and 42, the Sub Task Force was able to discuss and resolve all comments received on D3 during this short meeting. Three comments were received on Clause 04. One of the comments withdrew one of the other comments, and the third comment was of a minor editorial nature. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM04.PDF During the meeting, Pat Thaler raised a point concerning Figure 4-4(a), Control Flow Summary: TransmitFrame. Pat asked whether the behavior reflected in this figure had changed in D3, and Howard Frazier stated that in fact it had not, though the Figure had been altered slightly as a result of comments received at the Irvine meeting. The Figure was not changed between draft d2.1 and draft d3. Two comments were received on Clause 30. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM30.PDF Sumesh Kaul stated that the major area of effort for the production of the next draft of Clause 30 would be to undo the excessive and uneccessary strike-thru and underscore editing marks that had been inserted into the clause by an automated "compare documents" utility in FrameMaker. This will make the clause (and its annexes) easier to read. Twelve comments were received on Clause 41. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM41.PDF The principle area of discussion in clause 41 concerned the values of the idle_timer, false_carrier_timer, and no_collision_timer. The group concluded that these timer values would have to be re-evaluated for 1000 Mb/s operation. Stephen Haddock agreed to consult with individuals who were familiar with the derivation of the timer values for 100 Mb/s operation, and propose a set of scaled values for 1000 Mb/s operation. Stephen agreed to work on this off-line, and report the results of his investigation during the P802.3z closing session on 7/9. See comment file for details. Also in clause 41, the group considered a comment from Moshe Veloshin concerning the behavior in response to false carrier events (CommentID 163). Moshe's SuggestedRemedy (developed with the group's assistance) was accepted. See comment file for details. Two editorial comments were received on clause 42. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM42.PDF The System/MAC/Repeater/Management Sub Task Force concluded its meeting at 2:15 pm, 7/8/97. ___________________________________________________________________________ GMII sub task force meeting minutes 7/8-7/9 1997 The GMII subtask-force met to resolve comments on clauses 22 and 35 of 802.3z/D3.0. Presentations on the electrical interface were made by Richard Dugan and Haluk Aytac. After brief discussion, the group discussed comments addressing about half of the formal comments and others presented at the meeting. Discussion about the presentations and general electrical issues continued through the remainder of Tuesday's meetings. Four comments were received on clause 22. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM22.PDF Thirty-nine comments were received on clause 35. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM35.PDF The meetings on Wednesday initially focused on the issues related to the electrical interface. After discussion, the following motions were adopted. Motion 1 Move: transition time be less than or equal to 1.00 ns measured at the receiver from 0.70 v to 1.90 v. Quackenbush/Albrecht Y: 11, N: 1, A: 0 Motion 2 Move: that the DC specs for Vil, Vih, Vol, Voh be changed to Vil ¾ 0.90 v, Vih „ 1.70 v, Vol ¾ 0.5 v @ 1 mA, Voh „ 0.1 v @ 1 mA over temperature, Vdd and process variation. Quackenbush/Dugan Y: 13, N: 1, A: 1 Motion 3 Move: the tHOLD specifications in Tables 35-8 and 35-9 be changed to 0 ns. Coffey/Miller Y: 11, N: 1, A: 3 The subtask force then addressed the remainder of the formal comments and some additional comments. The responses to all comments are recorded in the comment database. ___________________________________________________________________________ Minutes from PCS/AN Sub Task Force The PCS/AN Sub Task Force met several times over the course of the week. It met monday morning, 7/7/97, from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon, and Tuesday afternoon, 7/8/97 from 1:00 to 6:00 pm. A dedicated group of Sub Task Force members met Tuesday evening, from 8:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. The Sub Task Force also met on Wednesday, 7/9/97, from 8:30 am to 3:00 pm. Twenty-nine comments were received on clause 36. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM36.PDF Twenty-two comments were received on clause 37. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM37.PDF Unfortunately, the Sub Task Force was not able to fully address and respond to all of the comments that it received on D3. The Sub Task Force chair will submit the unresolved comments along with his ballot during the P802.3 Working Group ballot on draft D3.1. ___________________________________________________________________________ Minutes from PMD Sub Task Force 7/7/97 PMD Chairman - Jonathan Thatcher Recording Secretary - Todd Hudson Fifty-three comments were received on clause 38. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM38.PDF Thirty-two comments were received on clause 39. These comments are documented in the file: ftp://stdsbbs.ieee.org/pub/802_main/802.3/gigabit/comments/d3/COM39.PDF Note that the PMD Sub Task Force also chose to document each of its comments and responses in these minutes. In the event of a conflict between the text included herein, and the text contained in the above referenced PDF files, the contents of the PDF files take precedence, unless otherwise determined by the Sub Task Force at its next meeting. Passed out PMD Goals and Agenda for July 97 Plenary Reviewed agenda - passed by acclamation with change of 8:00 am start on Wednesday. The objective of the PMD working group for this week is to clear all comments and get the draft ready to forward. Reviewed Big Ticket Items - EMB, Fiber link distances, RPAT, CRPAT, PRBS Reviewed Editor comments on Draft 3 Hand out of Change Summary from D3 to proposal Motion to adjourn and break into copper(CX) and optics(SX, LX) group until both groups reconvene on Wednesday morning. Each group is to review comments and provide responses. NOTE: Recording secretary was in optics group, so minutes are biased towards optics proceedings. 10:00 am Del Hanson led Optics Group of PMD Review Change Summary - from D3 to Proposal .1 - integrated from meeting in Minneapolis with TIA meeting Motion to change to D3.1 passed with no objections Adam Nealy of UNH InterOperability Lab reviewed PICS information and made many comments of things that had to be done for people to meet Clause 38 as far as PICS were concerned. Adam gave a summarization of why he recommended changes. Motion passed by acclamation to work through comments from 1-5pm instead of attending 802.3 working group. 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm Began going through comments - started with items other than PICs Motion passed by acclamation to start tomorrow morning at 8:00 am and also work from 8-10 pm tonight. 7/8/97 8:00am Optical Working Group within PMD led by Del Hanson The group continued to address Clause 38 comments from Nealy and Kolesar. 1:00pm Complete PMD Working Group met together - led by Thatcher Del Hanson gave an update of where resolution of comments stand with the optical group. Motion: (Procedural) Change the order of the day so that the PMD Working Group can approve the responses to all comments developed by the PMD optical subgroup as the consensus of the overall PMD group. Motion: Steve Swanson , 2nd: Tad Szostak Yes: 16, No: 8, Abstain: 5 Motion passes - Order of the day has been changed. Motion: (Technical) That the PMD Working Group can approve the responses to all comments developed by the PMD optical subgroup as the consensus of the overall PMD group. Motion: Swanson , 2nd: Szostak Yes: 18, No: 8, Abstain: 6 Motion fails LX and SX (Clause 38) Optics comments were reviewed and modified during the rest of the session. All comment responses were passed by acclamation (no negative votes) unless otherwise noted. CLAUSE 38 Comments/Resolution CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.1.1, Page: 38.1, Line: 47 Comment: Implementation of the PMD service interface should be required for the purpose of interoperability with the PMA. SuggestedRemedy: Change "The following specifies the services provided by the PMD." to "The following specifies the services that shall be provided by the PMD." Add a P ICS item to 38.11.4.1 to correspond with the new "shall": "FN-x, compliance with PMD service interface of 38.1.1, 38.1.1, M, Yes[], " Response: Rejected because this is an abstract interface not tied to a particular implementation. Page 38.3, lines 48-49, TP1 and TP4 are not system compliance points. CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 38.10.1, Page: 38.16, Line: 40 Comment: "MDI optical receptacle" should be a subclause heading (38.10.2) SuggestedRemedy: See comment Response: OK CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.10.4, Page: 38.14, Line: 34 Comment: Each link and link element (jumper) shall be crossed over implies that there may only be an odd number of links and link elements in a transmission path. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change to "..., optical link segments shall be crossed over to ensure proper connection between optical transceivers" to eliminate confusion. link segment, as defined in 1.4.110 defines the transmission path between two MDIs. Perhaps I am not interpreting the definition of link and link element properly. Response: Rejected since this is achieved automatically by following building wiring system practice and use of duplex SC connectors as specified in subclause 38.10. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.10.4, Page: 38.18, Line: 37 Comment: The statement regarding cross-over functions seems to conflict with the requirement of 38.10.2: "The receptacle shall ensure that polarity is maintained." An internal cross-over seems to be expressly forbidden by the standard. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest deleting the statement. Response: Reject. Remove section 38.10.3 Crossover function and remove Item LI-6 from table 38.11.4.5. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.11.4.1, Page: 38.21, Line: 35 Comment: Support of PICS items FN-3 and FN-4 implies support of FN-2. Therefore, FN-2 is redundant. SuggestedRemedy: Delete FN-2. This lines up with what was done for clause 39. Response: OK, also need to remove shall in line 36, subclause 38.2 of page 38.3. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.11.4.2, Page: 38.22, Line: 11 Comment: Regarding item PMS-3, only overshoot and undershoot are normative. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change to read: "PMS-3, transmitter overshoot/undershoot, 38.3.2, SX:M, Yes[] N/A[], measured from transmit eye per 38.5.5" Response: Rejected - Changes due to comment 129 invalidate this comment. Action: correct reference on page 38.22, line 11, from 38.5.6 to 38.5.5. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.11.4.3, Page: 38.22, Line: 33 Comment: Regarding PML-3, only overshoot and undershoot are normative. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change to read: "PML-3, transmitter overshoot/undershoot, 38.4.2, LX:M, Yes[] N/A[], measured from transmit eye per 3.5.5" Response: Rejected - Changes due to comment 129 invalidate this comment. Action: correct reference on page 38.22, line 11, from 38.5.6 to 38.5.5. Duplicate of comment 67 but for LW, PIC on PML3 on pg. 38.22, line 33. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.2.2, Page: 38.4, Line: 26 Comment: The conversion from tx_bit to optical power level should be mandated to guarantee interoperability. SuggestedRemedy: Change "The higher optical power level corresponds to tx_bit=ONE" to "The higher optical power level shall correspond to tx_bit=ONE." Add a PICS item to 38.11.4.1, "FN-x, interpretation of tx_bit, 38.2.2, M, Yes[], higher optical power level corresponds to tx_bit=ONE." Response: OK CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.2.3, Page: 38.4, Line: 32 Comment: The conversion from optical power level to rx_bit should be mandated to guarantee interoperability. SuggestedRemedy: Change "The higher optical power level corresponds to rx_bit=ONE" to "The higher optical power level shall correspond to rx_bit=ONE." Add a PICS item to 38.11.4.1, "FN-x, definition of rx_bit, 38.2.2, M, Yes[], higher optical power level corresponds to rx_bit=ONE." Response: OK CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.2.4.1, Page: 38.4, Line: 51 Comment: Even though signal detect is optional, its behavior should be more tightly specified for cases when it is implemented. The PICS only mandate that SIGNAL_DETECT=FAIL when the link is unplugged or the remote transmitter is turned off. However, the PICS do no prevent an implementation from setting SIGNAL_DETECT=FAIL when the signal is at the limits of the receive sensitivity. This is because the commentary on margins contains no "shalls". If "shalls" were added, they would be meaningless unless attached to quantitative values. SuggestedRemedy: Specify signal detect assertion and deassertion thresholds in the form of a "shall" statement with quantitative values. Propose that the "shall assert" level be the minimum receiver sensitivity, and the "shall deassert" level be this level minus 10 dBm. These parameters should be added to tables 38-4 and 38-9. Response: Reject: It is the intent of the committee to allow a broad range of implementations. Specific assert levels could unduly restrict specific implementations. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.3, Page: 38.5, Line: 21 Comment: If a device meets the requirements of 38.3, all media types in table 38-1 should be supported. If the requirements of 38.3 are not sufficient, the statement that all media types SHALL be supported does not really help the PMD implementor. Therefore, I believe this statement to be redundant. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change "A 1000BASE-SX complaint transmitter shall be capable of supporting..." to "A 1000BASE-SX compliant transmitter is capable of supporting..." Delete PICS item PMS-1 from 38.11.4.2. Response: OK CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.3.2, Page: 38.7, Line: 03 Comment: reference to table 38-2 should be to table 38-3. SuggestedRemedy: change reference from 38-2 to 38-3. Response: OK CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 38.3.2 and 3, Page: 38.7, Line: 3, 35 Comment: Incorrect references for Table 38-2 and 38.3 SuggestedRemedy: change Table 38-2 reference to Table 38.3, and Table 38.3 reference to Table 38.4 Response: OK CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.3.3, Page: 38.7, Line: 35 Comment: Reference to table 38-3 should be to table 38-4. SuggestedRemedy: Change reference from 38-3 to 38-4. Response: OK CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.3.4, Page: 38.8, Line: 03 Comment: Both SX and LX must meet the jitter requirements of table 38-5. SuggestedRemedy: Change "The 1000BASE-SX PMD shall..." to "The 1000BASE-SX PMD and the 1000BASE-LX PMD shall..." Response: Reject - Move 38.3.4 to become new 38.x where x replaces 38.5 position. Reference new 38.5 from 38.3 and 38.4. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.4, Page: 38.8, Line: 03 Comment: If a device meets the requirements of 38.4, all media types in table 38-1 should be supported. If the requirements of 38.3 are not sufficient, the statement that all media types SHALL be supported does not really help the PMD implementor. In order to support all media types, the MMF value column of table 38-8 must be implemented. If a station is required to implement the MMF value column, the statement in 38.4 becomes redundant. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change "A 1000BASE-LX complaint transmitter shall be capable of supporting..." to "A 1000BASE-LX compliant transmitter is capable of supporting..." Delete PICS item PML-1 from 38.11.4.3. Change 38.4.2, page 38.10, line 1, to "The 1000BASE-LX transmitter shall meet the specifications defined in the MMF value column of table 38-8..." Adjust PICS entry PML-2 accordingly. Response: This is a two part comment and has two different responses. Accept the suggested change to "A 1000BASE-LX complaint transmitter shall be capable of supporting..." to "A 1000BASE-LX compliant transmitter is capable of supporting..." Also add "50 and 62.5um MMF" to value descriptions on tables 38.3 and 38.8. Rejecting. Delete PICS item PML-1 from 38.11.4.3. Change 38.4.2, page 38.10, line 1, to "The 1000BASE-LX transmitter shall meet the specifications defined in the MMF value column of table 38-8..." Adjust PICS entry PML-2 accordingly" - because we are specifying a single interface for both single-mode and multimode. CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 38.4.2, Page: 38.10, Line: 3 Comment: Add phrase "for purposes of overshoot and undershoot only." SuggestedRemedy: See comment Response: Comment was accepted Put "The transmit mask is not used for response time and jitter specification" into 38.5.5 replacing last sentence in line 37-38 and note in 40 and remove all other eye/rise/fall..from clause. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.5.1, Page: 38.11, Line: 09 Comment: Referring to "A short patch cable from...shall...". The word "short" is not quantitative and makes conformance difficult to verify. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change "A short patch cable..." to "A patch cable no longer than 0.5 meter in length..." Incorporate appropriate changes to the PICS (38.11.4.4). Response: Accept with change to no longer than five meters for patch cable length. CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 38.5.5, Page: 38.11, Line: 41 Comment: Change word "ringing" in Note to "undershoot" SuggestedRemedy: See comment Response: Reject - see comment 129 CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.5.6, Page: 38.12, Line: 42 Comment: The measurement procedure for transmit rise/fall times should be mandated. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change "Transmit rise/fall times are measured..." to "Transmit rise/fall times shall be measured..." and add the appropriate items to the PICS (38.11.4.4) Response: Accept CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 38.7, Page: 38.14, Line: 37 Comment: The wording of 38.7 is unclear. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest change to "Hardware shall be implemented such that the normative specifications of this clause are met over the life of the product while the product operates within the manufacturer's range..." Response: Accept comment - change "implementing hardware" in line 37, section 38.7 to "a system integrating a 1000-BASE-X PMD" CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 38.9, Page: 38.16, Line: 1 to 55 Comment: General clean up of table 38.10 SuggestedRemedy: Remove reference row. Remove 850nm in Description text. Response: OK CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 39.3.4; Table, Page: 39.7, Line: 13 tp 28 Comment: The jitter numbers in Table 38.5 are not mathematically correct. SuggestedRemedy: The following were calculated by Del Hanson Corrected jitter table: Total Jitter Deterministic Jitter Random Jitter ps UI ps UI ps UI ------ ----- -------- ----------- ------- ------ TP1 192 0.240 96 0.12 96 0.12 1 to 2 227 0.284 80 0.10 147 0.184 TP2 352 0.440 176 0.22 176 0.22 2 to 3 96 0.120 0 0.00 96 0.12 TP3 376 0.470 176 0.22 200 0.25 3 to 4 240 0.300 184 0.23 56 0.07 TP4 568 0.710 360 0.45 208 0.26 Response: Agree with comment, table columns should be converted such that UI precedes ps values. CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: All, Page: All, Line: * Comment: Global search and change "Gbaud" to "GBd." SuggestedRemedy: See comment Response: OK CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher SubClause: 38C, Page: 38.31, Line: All Comment: Need to remove text: "******worst case data pattern ******" SuggestedRemedy: Remove Annex 38C entirely. This annex would be necessary if 3z decides to use a scope method instead of a BERT method to measure total jitter. Otherwise, wait until FCJWG finishes its work before added to standard. Response: OK, rewrote subclause 38.5.9 to allow Annex 38C to be deleted and changed 38.5.10 and 38.5.11 to "according to the method in FC-PH." CommenterName: Paul Kolesar SubClause: 38.4.2, Page: 38.4, Line: n/a Response: Comment: Table 38.2 lists response time as a spec. That same line (response time) should be in Table 38.6 - 1000BASE-LX transmit characteristics. SuggestedRemedy: See comment Response: OK CommenterName: Steve Swanson SubClause: Table 38.8, Page: 38.6, Line: 21 Response: Comment: Dispersion slope formula is incorrect for the wavelength range 1295-1300. SuggestedRemedy: Change the Dispersion slope (max) to 0.11 for 1300”l(0)”1320 and 0.001 (l(0)- 1190) for 1295”l(0)”1300 Response: OK CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher SubClause: n/a, Page: n/a, Line: n/a Response: Comment: Accept, per Ft Lauderdale meeting, changes in clause 38 would be forthcoming in consequence of the work of TIA 2.2. Changes in Bandwidth and Effective Modal Bandwidth need to be made throughout the document. SuggestedRemedy: Accept the clause 38 modal bandwidth proposal (Change Summary D3 to proposal .1) as presented July, 1997 in Maui. Response: Accept with: Change Table 38.8 dispersion slope of 50um to l sub 0 -1190. Add b superscript to 62.5um, 850nm, of modal bandwidth in Table 38.8. Table 38.11 needs 25 in extinction ratio box instead of dB Change table on page 38.10, line 25 heading to WCMB from modal bandwidth. Make same change to table on page 38.11 Delete "20-80%" from heading on table on page 38-11, line 32. CommenterName: Bob Dahlgren SubClause: 38.11.4.3, Page: 38.22, Line: 28 Comment: Revisiting comment #69 in which we changed the column headings for MMF to read "50/62.5 MMF value". In effect we accepted the first sentence of the suggested remedy and rejected the rest. I believe there was an intent to delete the PICs entry in comment 69. SuggestedRemedy: Delete PICs item PML-1 from subclause 38.11.4.3 Response: Accept CommenterName: Bob Dahlgren SubClause: 38.6.1, Page: 38.14, Line: 12 Comment: Safety standard is "IEC 90" SuggestedRemedy: Change to "IEC - 950" Also change PIC (page 24, line 3) OR14 Response: Accept CommenterName: Bob Musk SubClause: 38.10.1, Page: 38.17, Line: 36 Comment: IEC reference should refer to Interface Standard document to include adapters. SuggestedRemedy: Change reference IEC 874-14 to IEC 1754-4. Response: OK CommenterName: Mark Nowell Clause: 38 Comment: Definitions are needed SuggestedRemedy: Accept definitions list prepared by Paul Kolesar with amendments: Response: Accept CommenterName: Paul Pace SubClause: Tables 38.3 and 38.8, Page: 7 & 10, Line: 24 & 19 Comment: This item is not applicable to present capabilities of many module manufacturers and would require extensive modifications. By definition, this item could entail further definitions of Transmit Disable, Signal Detect (optional to standard at this time), and Assert/Deassert parameters of power level, response time, and hysteresis. SuggestedRemedy: Delete following item: Launch power of Off Transmitter (max) -30 dBm (max) Response: Rejecting comment - This creates other unresolved issues. Vote to reject comment: For: 16 Against: 7 Abstain: 6 2nd vote to vote as accept as written: For: 6 Against: 11 Abstain: 13 Paul decided to withdraw comment CommenterName: Doug Day SubClause: 38.3.4, Page: , Line: 12-27 Comment: There is no normative reference to the frequency content of the jitter budget (Table 38-5), i.e., that the jitter is all above 637 kHz. SuggestedRemedy: Add "Numbers in the Table 38-5 represent high frequency jitter (above 637 kHz) and do not include low frequency jitter or wander." Response: Doug withdrew comment CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Subclause: 2.1, Page: 38.3, Line: 42 Comment: The present definition of the standard reference point for the PMD sublayer is the system bulkhead. The bulkhead is taken to mean the standard SC receptacle defined in Figure 38-5. The standard reference points for the PMD sublayer should not be defined at the system bulkhead for the transmitter. The reference point should instead be the output from a short (” 5 m) patch cord attached to the receptacle. This definition is in line with previous definitions (10BASE-F) and with structured cabling systems. The reference point for the optical receiver should be at the output of standard SC connector terminating the exit end of the fiber media that will be plugged into the receiver's SC receptacle. SuggestedRemedy: Modify paragraph 1 to read: For purposes of system conformance, the PMD sublayer is standardized at the following points. The optical transmit signal is defined at the output end of a 2 meter patch cord (TP2) connected to the transmitter receptacle defined in 38.10.1. The optical receive signal is defined at the output of the cable plant (TP3) connected to the receiver receptacle defined in 38.10.1. Modify Figure 38-1 to reflect the above changes. The system bulkheads should be at the edges of the boxes labeled Optical PMD Transmitter and Optical PMD Receiver. Patch cords should be drawn between these bulkheads and the optical cable plant. TP2 is at the exit end of the Transmitter patch cord. TP3 is at the exit end of Receiver patch cord. Response: Accept, with revision Modify paragraph 1 to read: For purposes of system conformance, the PMD sublayer is standardized at the following points. The optical transmit signal is defined at the output end of a 5 meter or less patch cord (TP2) of a type consistent with the link type connected to the transmitter receptacle defined in 38.10.1. The optical receive signal is defined at the output of the cable plant (TP3) connected to the receiver receptacle defined in 38.10.1. Modify Figure 38-1 to reflect the above changes. The system bulkheads should be at the edges of the boxes labeled Optical PMD Transmitter and Optical PMD Receiver. A patch cord should be drawn between the transmitter bulkhead and the optical cable plant. TP2 is at the exit end of the Transmitter patch cord. TP3 is at the exit end of the cable plant. Note: a graphical redraw is necessary for Figure 38-1. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 3, Page: 38.5, Line: 19 Comment: The first sentence is redundant with 38.2.1. SuggestedRemedy: Delete the first sentence. Response: OK CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 3.1, Page: 38.6, Line: all Comment: This section should be informative. SuggestedRemedy: Move section to the informative annex 38A. Response: OK CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 3.1, Page: 38.6, Line: 18 Comment: #4 Extinction ratio values are missing from Table 38-2. SuggestedRemedy: Add a row for the extinction ratio values used in spread sheet analysis. Response: OK, Add row with values of 25 & 25 dB. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 4, Page: 38.8, Line: 39 Comment: The first sentence is redundant with 38.2.1. SuggestedRemedy: Delete first sentence. Response: OK CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 4.1, Page: 38.9, Line: all Comment: #6 This section should be informative. SuggestedRemedy: Move section to the informative annex 38A. Response: OK CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 4.1, Page: 38.9, Line: 33 Comment: Extinction ratio values are missing from Table 38-7. SuggestedRemedy: Add a row for the extinction ratio values used in spread sheet analysis. Response: OK, Add a row with values of 25, 25, 25 dB CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 4.2, Page: 38.10, Line: 14 Comment: The Trise and Tfall 20-80% values are missing from Table 38-8. SuggestedRemedy: Add a row for Trise and Tfall specification per agreement with Change Summary, Major Change 4. on page 38.1. Value should be 0.26 ns in both columns. Response: OK, add a row with values of 0.26 & 0.26 ns CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 5.2, Page: 38.11, Line: 15 Comment: OFSTP-2 is for singlemode fiber only. SuggestedRemedy: Replace OFSTP-2 with FOTP-95 which applies to both MM and SMF and is an absolute optical power test for optical fibers and cables. Response: OK CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 5.3, Page: 38.11, Line: 22 Comment: Clarify extinction ratio definition. SuggestedRemedy: Delete "minimum acceptable" in line 22 and add the following to the end of the sentence to tie in with clauses 38.3.3 and 38.3.4: "... at the center of the eye." Response: Accept with clarification, Delete third sentence in subclause 38.5.3 beginning on line 21. Also replace "shall be" with "is" in line 23. Finally, change second sentence beginning on line 20 to "This measurement may be made with the node transmitting continuous K28.7 characters. Also add note: A K28.7 will give a 1010 sequence at 1/5 the line rate. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 5.8, Page: 38.13, Line: 1 Comment: No optical receive rise/fall times are included anywhere in clause 38. SuggestedRemedy: Delete clause. The link analysis model provides a means of calculating link distances without setting the receiver optical Trise and Tfall values. Response: Subclause deleted. Also, add receiver bandwidth = 1000 MHz in two model parameter tables in the informative annex. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 9, Page: 38.16, Line: 6 Comment: The reference wavelength for SMF is inaccurate. SuggestedRemedy: Change the reference wavelength for SMF from 1300 to 1310 nm. This is the widely accepted value used to characterize SMF. Response: Rejected because this is a nominal wavelength reference for the two ranges in the standard. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 9.4, Page: 38.17, Line: 5 Comment: Figure 38-4 does not distinguish between 50 and 62.5 MMF. SuggestedRemedy: Provide a vertical line at 1320 nm to divide the regions of the figure with the left labeled 50 um MMF and the right labeled 62.5 um MMF. Since the regions were split in Table 38.10, they should also be split in Figure 38-4. Response: Accept with comment - delete subclause 38.9.4 Dispersion slope (informative) CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 10.1, Page: 38.17, Line: 42 Comment: Inaccurate reference to mating connector. SuggestedRemedy: Replace reference to Table 38-10 with a reference to IEC 874-14 called out in the paragraph above. Response: Accept with comment - An error was found in line 36 which references IEC 874- 14. This should be IEC 874-4. Change line 35 to "...optical connector (plug and receptacle) shall be the duplex SC.." Also delete ".and Receptacle" from line 31. Finally, delete complete section regarding MDI optical receptacle from lines 40 to 45. Change figure 38-5 call out of Connector to Plug. Also delete "and receptacle" from Figure 38-5 title. Finally, delete "and receptacle" from line 3 page 38.18. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 10.1, Page: 38.17, Line: 43 Comment: Reference to "easy connection and reconnection" is meaningless because it is non-specific. SuggestedRemedy: Delete text. Response: OK, section has been deleted CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: 10.1, Page: 38.17, Line: 44 Comment: Maintaining polarity needs to be specific. SuggestedRemedy: Move sentence two from subclause 38.10.2 (line 3) to this subclause. Presently the text describing the positions of the Tx and Rx ports in a receptacle are informative. They must be normative to ensure polarity maintenance within a structured cabling environment. Response: Accept moving sentence to line 38, page 38.17 as modified - "The receive side of the receptacle shall be located on the left when viewed looking into the optical ports with the keys on the bottom surface. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: A.1, Page: 38.26, Line: 11 Comment: Dual meanings for T sub s. SuggestedRemedy: Ts is used in equation 6 to represent system rise time and again in equations 7 and 8 for source rise time. Suggest changing equation 6 to Tsys. Response: Accept, change sub s to sub sys in 5 places in equations 5&6 and text. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: A.2, Page: 38.26, Line: 36 Comment: Incorrect symbols. SuggestedRemedy: T sub e should be T sub c as defined in line 33. Response: OK, change sub e to sub c in eq. 8. CommenterName: Paul Kolesar Clause: 38, Subclause: A.8, Page: 38.28, Line: all Comment: The model for cable attenuation does not reflect the general case attenuation equation. The coefficients of 0.94 and 1.05 are correct only for the specific case where the cable has attenuation of exactly 3.5 dB/km at 850 nm and 1.5 dB/km at 1300 nm. Another term was added to the equation (R/C) perhaps in an attempt to generalize the equation for any cable attenuation coefficients, but does not produce this result. SuggestedRemedy: Replace the present equation with the more correct general forms. Different coefficients apply to cables with different specified operating wavelengths, such as MMF and SMF. Also, these equations do not predict "water peak" absorption region effects. The general form of this equation that can be applied to cables with attenuation coefficients specified at 0.85 and 1.3 micron wavelengths is: Attenuation = L[0.64(C sub 0.85 - C sub 1.3)/lambda ^ 4 + 1.22 C sub 1.3 - 0.22 C sub 0.85] where: Attenuation is in dB, L is the length of the cable, C sub 0.85 is the attenuation coefficient at 0.85 microns in dB/km, C sub 1.3 is the attenuation coefficient at 1.3 microns in dB/km, lambda is the operating wavelength of interest in microns. The general form of this equation that can be applied to cables with attenuation coefficients specified at 1.31 and 1.55 micron wavelengths is: Attenuation = L [ 6.01(C sub 1.31 - C sub 1.55) / lambda ^ 4 + 2.04 C sub 1.55 - 1.04 C sub 1.31] where: Attenuation is in dB, L is the length of the cable, C sub 1.31 is the attenuation coefficient at 1.31 microns in dB/km, C sub 1.55 is the attenuation coefficient at 1.55 microns in dB/km, lambda is the operating wavelength of interest in microns. Response: Partial Accept with comment The attenuation, in dB, of cabled optical fiber for a particular link length is modeled by the following equation: [insert present equation 19] The equation is based on the maximum allowable attenuation specifications for MMF, but can be applied to SMF in the 1300 nm operating region. Where: L=link length in km. For 1000BASE-SX links: R sub l = the actual cable attenuation in dB/km @ 850nm C sub l = 3.5 dB/km For 1000BASE-LX links: R sub l = the actual cable attenuation in dB/km @ 1300nm for MMF or @ 1310 nm for SMF C sub l = 1.5 dB/km CommenterName: Steve Swanson Clause: 38 Comment: There are no clause 38 references included in the standard. SuggestedRemedy: Add the attached clause 38 references to clause 1. Response: Accept Meeting was adjourned at 6:15 pm. 7/9/97 8:00 am - Complete PMD group met together to review and modify Clause 39 (CX) comments. All comment responses were passed by acclamation (no negative votes) unless otherwise noted. CLAUSE 39 CommenterName: Lisa Huff SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8 , Line: 31 Comment: There is no test description for how to test the NEXT parameter in Table 39-6. SuggestedRemedy: Add the following test setup to the new test procedure clause: Near End Cross Talk (NEXT) is tested using a differential TDR or equivalent filtered to the risetime (near end cross talk at 85 ps T sub r max) limit in table 39- 6. The T+ and T- inputs of the pair are excited while the R+ and R- are measured within the same connector pair. The far end of the T+/T- pair is terminated per figure 39-2. The R+ and R- signals at the pair being tested are terminated with a load (including test equipment) equivalent to that shown in Figure 39-2. The far end of the R+ and R- pair being monitored are unterminated. Response: Accept. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.1, Page: 39.1, Line: 31 Comment: Change `0 to 25'. SuggestedRemedy: Change `0 to 25' to `1 to 25' since some minimum length of jumper cable is required to connect same sex PHY connectors. Response: Accept but with 0.1 to 25 meters instead of 0 to 25 meters. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.2.1, Page: 39.1, Line: 48 Comment: The relationship between tx_bit and output voltage should be defined to guarantee interoperability. SuggestedRemedy: Add statement to 39.2.1, "The higher output voltage shall correspond to tx_bit=ONE." Add corresponding item to PICS (39.7.4.1). Response: Accept with modification: "The higher output voltage of T+ - T- (differential voltage) shall...." CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.2.2, Page: 39.2, Line: 03 Comment: The relationship between input voltage and rx_bit should be defined to guarantee interoperability. SuggestedRemedy: Add statement to 39.2.2, "The higher input voltage shall correspond to rx_bit=ONE." Add corresponding item to PICS (39.7.4.1). Response: Accept with modification: "The higher output voltage of R+ - R- (differential voltage) shall...." CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.2.3.1, Page: 39.2, Line: 21 Comment: Even though signal detect is optional, its behavior should be more tightly specified for cases when it is implemented. The PICS only mandate that SIGNAL_DETECT=FAIL when the link is unplugged or the remote transmitter is turned off. However, the PICS do no prevent an implementation from setting SIGNAL_DETECT=FAIL when the signal is at the limits of the receive sensitivity. This is because the commentary on margins contains no "shalls". If "shalls" were added, they would be meaningless unless attached to quantitative values. SuggestedRemedy: Specify signal detect assertion and deassertion thresholds in the form of a "shall" statement with quantitative values. Propose that the "shall assert" level be the minimum receiver sensitivity (400mv), and the "shall deassert" level be 200mV . These parameters should be added to tables 39-1 and 39-3. Response: Reject: It is the intent of the committee to allow a broad range of implementations. Specific assert levels could unduly restrict specific implementations. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.3.1, Page: 39.3, Line: 31 Comment: Location of `point-b'? SuggestedRemedy: I assume `point-b' is TP1. If so, suggest appropriate change be made. Response: Accept CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.3.1, Page: 39.3, Line: 38 Comment: Clock tolerance specification seems to be missing. SuggestedRemedy: Add entry to table, "clock tolerance, +/- 100 ppm". Response: Accept CommenterName: PMD CX work group SubClause: New 39.3.1, Page: 39.4, Line: ~19 Comment: Clause 39 eye diagram does not exclude jitter and rise/fall specifications per Ft. Lauderdale mtg. SuggestedRemedy: " the transmit mask is not used for response time and jitter specification." Response: Accept CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher SubClause: 39.3.4, Page: 39.7 to 39.8, Line: 44 Comment: Subclause 39.3.4 contains redundant information. SuggestedRemedy: 1. Remove table 39-5 and associated text 2. Move all remaining text to 39.6. Response: Accept CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.3.1, Page: 39.3, Line: 41 Comment: There seems to be a conflict between the jitter specifications of table 39-1 and 39-4. I assume 39-4 to be the real specification. SuggestedRemedy: Remove DJ, RJ, and TJ entries from table 39-1. Response: Accept CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.3.2, Page: 39.6, Line: 04 Comment: The table completely specifies the receiver input impedance at TP3, the statement that "The receiver shall terminate the link by..." seems to be redundant. SuggestedRemedy: Delete "The receiver shall terminate the link by..." Response: Accept CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) SubClause: 39.3.3; Tabl, Page: 39.7, Line: 22 to 40 Comment: The jitter numbers in Table 39.4 are not mathematically correct. SuggestedRemedy: The following were calculated by Colin Whitby-Strevens according to the following algorithm: 1) FC UI * 941 -> FC ps 2) FC ps -> GE ps 3) GE ps / 800 -> GE UI Corrected jitter table: Total Jitter Deterministic Jitter Random Jitter ps UI ps UI ps UI ------ ----- -------- ----------- ------- ------ TP1 188 0.24 94 0.12 94 0.12 1 to 2 82 0.1 19 0.02 63 0.08 TP2 226 0.28 113 0.14 113 0.14 2 to 3 380 0.48 207 0.26 173 0.22 TP3 527 0.66 320 0.40 207 0.26 3 to 4 38 0.05 38 0.05 0 0.0 TP4 565 0.71 358 0.45 207 0.26 Response: Reject: The numbers are still incorrect. The following numbers will be used. Total Jitter Deterministic Jitter Random Jitter ps UI ps UI ps UI ------ ----- -------- ----------- ------- ------ TP1 192 0.24 96 0.12 96 0.12 1 to 2 72 0.09 16 0.02 56 0.07 TP2 223 0.28 112 0.14 111 0.14 2 to 3 384 0.48 208 0.26 176 0.22 TP3 528 0.66 320 0.40 208 0.26 3 to 4 40 0.05 40 0.05 0 0.0 TP4 568 0.71 360 0.45 208 0.26 CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.3.4, Page: 39.7, Line: 49 Comment: Table 39-5 seems to be redundant with tables 39-1 and 39-3. SuggestedRemedy: Remove table 39-5 and above statement that "The systems shall meet the operational requirements...". Remove corresponding PICS item. Response: Accept CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.3.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 6 Comment: Recommend the sentence be re-written clarify grounds. Suggested change: The jumper cable shield shall be connected to chassis ground of the MDI connector at both ends of the jumper cable as shown in Figure 39-1. For this connection to effective frame ground of the 1000BASE-X equipment must be earthed (connected to the power system ground. (Note to editor: Check to ensure there is a requirement someplace else in the 1000BASE- X spec that requires the connection of frame ground to power ground) Response: Reject: This suggestion is redundant with existing text in 39.1 and 39.6. Other: Remove the redundant "shall" in 39.1 (p 39.1; line 35). CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 16 Comment: Requirement needed to ensure cable shield connected to connector (plug) shell. SuggestedRemedy: Add a sub-clause that says something like "The cable shield shall be connected the shell of the connectors (plugs) at each end of the jumper cable". An item must also be added to the PICS proforma. Response: Reject: This requirement is already covered by the 11801 reference in 39.6. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 18 Comment: Recommend a sentence be added to the beginning of this section to describe the purpose of the jumper cable. SuggestedRemedy: Add the following sentence to the beginning of the sub-clause. `A jumper cable, which is described in this clause, shall be used to inter-connect 1000BASE-CX PMDs.' Response: Conditional accept: put "Jumper cables, described in 39.4, are used to inter- connect 1000BASE-CX PMDs" into 39.1, the introduction. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 18 Comment: Recommend `have' be changed. SuggestedRemedy: Change `have' to `consist of'. Response: Accept CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 18 Comment: Wordsmith `male' SuggestedRemedy: Suggest `male' be changed to `plug (male)'. Response: Accept. Scrub entire document for "male" and "female." Change "male" to plug and "female" to receptacle. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 22 Comment: Table 39-6 is a reasonable summary table for the jumper cable characteristics. What is missing is the requirements/description for each individual parameter. I believe this extremely important since the specification for most of the parameters is in the time domain vs the frequency domain. SuggestedRemedy: Provide a sub-clause for each of the jumper cable specifications. 1) Attenuation: This specification should contain frequencies higher than 625 MHz since this additional bandwidth is needed to reliably decode the NRZ signals; probably at high as 800-850 MHz. The frequency response of the jumper cable is needed in order to design the imbedded equalizers as specified in 39.4.1. 2) Differential skew: A description of this parameter and why it is needed should be provided. 3) Near-End Crosstalk (NEXT) loss: If the attenuation is specified in dB, then I believe the NEXT loss should be specified in dB. If not then a description of the the time domain measurement procedure should be provided. 4) End to End delay: Suggest this be specified in ps rather than bit times, or both, to ensure the reader understands the parameter. 5) Link Impedance @ T2: There are two specifications provided. An exclamation is needed to define each. It appears one is for cable only, and if this the case why? I believe the additional specificity for each of the jumper cable parameters is necessary for those who will be responsible for writing the Conformance Specification. In addition, it is also keeping with the practice used other 802.3 specifications for the media links; detailed specification to ensure the media link will support the objective BER. Response: Partial acceptance. 1. Rejected: specification of attenuation characteristics > the half-baud frequency are not necessary. Two signals, one with high frequency components and the other without, can not be distinguished at the output of a worst case cable. This can be shown with a Mathcad filtered model of the signal spectral components. It is outside the scope of the standard to specify equalizer parameters. 2. Accept: the PMD group will define skew in the glossary. The group will also add a test procedure for skew. 3. Reject/Accept: NEXT measurements provide a ratio which is readily converted to dB. b) put it in the measurement subclause. 4. Reject: The selection of bit times was done to conform with the "bit- budget" specifications present in the other major clauses of the standard. It was deemed unnecessary to provide both units. 5. The reason for the two is because the impedance through the connectors cannot be as well controlled as it can through the cable. The usage of these parameters are explained in the new test requirements section. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.8, Line: 41 Comment: "The link termination shall match that shown in figure 39-2." Seems be redundant with table 39-6. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest removing that statement and the corresponding PICS item. Response: Accept CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.9, Line: 5 Comment: ISO/IEC 8802-5 does not contain cable specification for IBM Type 1 cable. SuggestedRemedy: If a reference is needed for IBM Type 1 cable I would suggest ISO/IEC 11801:1995 be used since this is where the electrical specifications are contained. The cable is referred to as STP. I would recommend that this paragraph be removed completely since there are a number of 150 cables, not just STP, may not meet the differential skew requirement. Response: Partial Accept: correct reference to ISO/IEC11801:1995. The referenced cable is in common use in network environments, in many instances with proper connectors and pinouts. For short links these cables may meet cls39 requirements. However, since this cable is not manufactured to any specific skew characteristics it may not be usable in longer cables. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.4.1, Page: 39.9, Line: 11 Comment: Regarding the optional equalizer network, the statement that "It shall be used to correct for frequency selective attenuation..." is not testable. SuggestedRemedy: Change statement to, "The output of the cable assembly, with optional equalizer network, when driven with by a transmitter meeting the requirements of 39.3.1, shall meet the eye diagram requirements of figure 39-5." Also need to change the PICS item LI-6 in 39.7.4.3. Response: Partial Accept: The sentence under question is redundant with other portions of clause 39. Remove "It shall be used... signal components." Comment: Change title of clause SuggestedRemedy: Remove the word `Balanced' since there is no reference to it clause 39.4. Response: Reject: Change line 18 to "A 1000BASE-CX compliant... and shielded, balanced cable...." CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.5.2, Page: 39.9, Line: 46 Comment: Suggest `plug or male' be changed to `plug (male)' and `receptacle or female' to `jack (female)'. SuggestedRemedy: See above Response: Accept - Previously agreed to remove male and female per other comment. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.7.4.2, Page: 39.15, Line: 09 Comment: Regarding PM-3, I believe the main intent 39.3.1 was to specify the transmitter eye diagram. SuggestedRemedy: add PICS item "PM-x, transmitter eye diagram, 39.3.1, M, Yes[], meets requirements of figure 39-3 and 39-4 when terminated as shown in TP2. Response: Accept: Additionally, change 39.3.1 "The signal requirements... Table 39-1" to "The transmitter shall meet the specifications in Table 39-1." This required the addition of a new PIC. CommenterName: Adam Healey SubClause: 39.7.4.2, Page: 39.15, Line: 16 Comment: Regarding PM-7, the receiver BER cannot be measured without mandating the conditions under which the requirement should be met. SuggestedRemedy: Change PM-7 to, "PM-7, receiver eye diagram, 38.3.2, M, Yes[], meet BER objective of 10^-12 when signal delivered to receiver meets requirements specified in figure 39-5" Response: Reject: The group decided to not use BER as a specification methodology for jumper cable assemblies. Reference to BER in 39.3.2 will be removed along with the associated PIC. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: 39.7.4.2, Page: 39.15, Line: 35 Comment: Jumper cable requirements shown in Table 39-6 do not appear in PICS. SuggestedRemedy: Add an item to the PICS to reflect the jumper cable requirements shown in Table 39-6. Response: Reject: There is a typo in LI-1. The content of the value/comment column will be changed the table reference from 39-4 to 39-6. Add "table 39-6" to the feature column. CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: Figure 39-1, Page: 39.3, Line: 1 Comment: Suggest the text at the top of the figure be changed. SuggestedRemedy: Change text to read `Shielded Jumper Cable', which is much more descriptive. Also, clause 39.4 does not indicate the jumper contains 'balanced pairs'. Response: Accept CommenterName: Robert Campbell SubClause: Figure 39-1, Page: 39.3, Line: 1 Comment: Modify Figure 39-1 to increase clarity for reader. SuggestedRemedy: Suggest the following to increase clarity of Figure 39-1. 1. Place dotted lines around transmit and receive portions to show what is inside equipment. 2. Add `1000BASE-CX' to Transmit Network and Receive Network. 3. Show a connector between T+/T- and 1000BASE-CX Transmit Network and between R+/R- and 1000BASE-CX Receive Network. Response: Accept 1 and 2. Reject 3: A connector at this location would be an implementation choice which while not specifically disallowed by the standard, is not encouraged. This is the reason that TP1 and TP4 are not compliance points, since these are not measurable in a system environment. Additionally, add the words "(half link is shown)" to the 39.1 title. CommenterName: Jonathan Thatcher (for PMD working group) Clause: 39, SubClause: TBD, Page: TBD, Line: * Comment: During the Ft. Lauderdale Mtg. it was identified that clause 39 needed a subclause on test methodologies. Ed Grivna worked up a recommendation which was published on the reflector on Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:29:05 -0500 SuggestedRemedy: Use Test/Measurements recommended by Ed Grivna stated for Clause 39 Response: Partial Accept. Includes rewording. Add to 39.3: "The electrical specifications for this subclause are measured according to the requirements of 39.x." [Where x will be the new test and measurements subclause]. Add to 39.4 same CommenterName: Grahame Measor SubClause: 39.4, Page: 39.5, Line: 47-49 Response: Comment: Eye diagram in Figure 39-4 will be closed by high frequency jitter past the X1 point if the maximum allowed by Table 39.4 is present. SuggestedRemedy: Remove note in lines 47-49, indicating the high frequency jitter is present. Response: Reject - Fix table 39.2 to match new Table 39.4. Change note on page 39.5, line 47 "baud rate div. by 2500" to "637 kHz". CommenterName: Ed Cady Clause: 39 Comment: Definitions and references are missing in clause. SuggestedRemedy: To accept Ed Grivna's set of definitions and references: NOTE: All PMD comments were approved by acclamation with the exception of the Change Summary D3 to proposal .1 which was unanimously voted forward y show of hands. 11:20 am - New Business Presentations on EMB David Smith - Honeywell David Cunningham - HP labs Other new business such as definitions/references became new comments which were included in comments above. 3:15 pm PMD adjourned Respectfully Submitted, Todd Hudson Siecor Corporation ___________________________________________________________________________ Wednesday, July 9th, 1997, P802.3z Task Force Plenary Closing Session 17) Chair, Howard Frazier, calls meeting to order, approximately 3:05pm 18) Howard noted that a "Call for Patents" was done at the 802.3 meeting 19) No liason reports beyond those given in other meetings 20) MAC Sub Task Force report - Presented by Howard Frazier - No changes/issues from draft 3.0 21) GMII Sub Task Force report - Presented by Bob Grow - Substantive issue in Clause 22 was deletion of bit 0.5 in Control register - Changes made in electrical interface specification should enable a single MAC part to interface with either SerDes or GMII device using same pins 22) PCS Sub Task Force report - Presented by Rich Taborek - Responded to all comments in database as of Monday, July 7, 1997 - New comments were not addressed due to time constraints - New annex 36A addresses previous motion on RPAT, etc. frames 23) PMD Sub Task Force report - Presented by Jonathan Thatcher - 85 comments were received on optical and copper PMD clauses--all addressed and resolved 24) Repeater Sub Task Force report - Presented by Steve Haddock - Most comments were editorial - Steve asked for and received permission to fix PICs for D3.1--no objections - Three timer values changed: idle_timer, false_carrier_timer, and no_collision_timer 25) Review and discussion of resolution of Big Ticket items. - Resolutions presented above - All items closed - Significant discussion of Big Ticket item #1 i) PMD Sub Task Force feels that new specs will cover 99% of installed fiber cables ii) Detailed discussion of experiments to measure parameters of real cables--table 38.8 was adjusted based on results of measurements 26) New Business/Motions ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion 1 Moved: Grow Second: Hanson "That the link distances as proposed for table 38.8 satisfy objectives 11b & 11c & 13." Discussion Bob Grow Del Hanson Howard Johnson Jonathan Thatcher Tom Dineen (questioned whether distance objective was met, happy with result, unhappy with procedure) Howard Frazier (responded to Tom by saying distance was met with 50 micron fiber) Vote -- Technical (>/= 75%) For: 71 Against: 7 Abstain: 12 MOTION PASSED AT 4:47PM ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion 2 Moved: Rich Taborek Second: Ben Brown "Accept annex 36A as presented in P802.3z/D3.0 with the resolution of comments per this meeting in fulfillment of relevant motions passed at the Ft. Lauderdale interim." Discussion Howard Frazier Rich Taborek Howard Johnson Vote -- Technical (>/= 75%) For: 65 Against: 0 Abstain: 13 MOTION PASSED AT 4:53PM ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion 3 Moved: Rich Taborek Second: Brad Booth "Resolve remaining PICs issues in Clauses 36-37 during Working Group Ballot. (Rich T. will resubmit PICs issues as WG comments." Friendly amendment proposed by Howard Johnson "Strike 'PICs' from motion" Accepted by Taborek/Booth Amended Motion "Resolve remaining issues in Clauses 36-37 during Working Group Ballot. (Rich T. will resubmit issues as WG comments." Discussion None John Payne asked the chair to call the question. The chair pointed out that since no one else seemed to want to speak on this item of business, there was no need to call the question, and thereupon put the question to a vote. Vote -- Technical (>/= 75%) For: 67 Against: 0 Abstain: 17 MOTION PASSED AT 5:02PM ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion 4 Moved: Howard Johnson Second: Walter Thirion "That the responses to comments received on draft D3 be accepted, and that they be incorporated in draft D3.1, with editorial refinement as necessary. Further, that the IEEE P802.3z Gigabit Task Force requests that the IEEE P802.3 CSMA/CD Working Group issue a working group ballot with draft D3.1, And, that IEEE P802.3 authorize the IEEE P802.3z Gigabit Task Force to conduct meetings and administer recirculation ballots as necessary to resolve comments received during the working group ballot." Discussion Howard Johnson Summarized the amount of hard work the group had done getting to this point and that the draft was in a very good state to submit for working group ballot. Howard Frazier Also thanked the group for its effort during the past year and a half in driving to a new standard. Also stressed how much work was still left in going through the balloting process. Group should expect to receive a few thousand comments and these would all have to be resolved in a timely manner. Howard also emphasized that this was likely to be the most important question ever put to the Sub Task Force, and that the members should give their vote careful consideration. Vote -- Technical (>/= 75%) For: 105 Against: 0 Abstain: 4 MOTION PASSED AT 5:12PM There arose a very hearty round of applause ___________________________________________________________________________ 27) Plans for next meeting - Sep 8-11, Strand Hotel, London - Howard Frazier summarized - David Law presented information about location 28) Additional Interim meeting - Because of the amount of work involved with resolving working group ballot comments, Howard Frazier recommended an additional interim meeting - tentatively scheduled for the week of Sep 22nd, 1997 - proposed Silicon Valley location to minimize travel for the largest number of people. 29) Discussion of next plenary - Nov 10-14, 1997, Montreal - Desire is to have all working group ballot comments resolved by this time 30) Straw poll of number of people planning to attend next set of meetings - London: 50 - Silicon Valley: 50, only 25-30 need hotel rooms 31) Geoff Thompson asked group to provide any possible assistance to P802.3ab task force. They are facing some tough issues. 32) Minutes from Ft. Lauderdale meeting - Howard Frazier asked for any questions/comments/issues with the published minutes--none - motion to accept minutes Moved: Steve Haddock Second: Bill Quackenbush Passed by acclamation 33) Motion to adjourn Moved: Thirion Second: Elswick Passed by acclamation Meeting adjourned at 5:30PM ___________________________________________________________________________