IEEE 802.3, HSSG - 10 Gig MINUTES
Study Group Interim Meeting
September 27 - 29, 1999
York, England

Prepared by:
Thomas Mathey

The meeting convened at about 9:10 AM,September 27, 1999.  Jonathan Thatcher, High Speed Study Group Chair, opened the meeting with a presentation of the agenda, now available at the IEEE web site http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/public/sept99/index.html.  

Jonathan had a special “Thanks to 3COM and David Law” for presenting this meeting in the historic town of York.

The priority objective for this week is to finalize the PAR and 5 Criteria.  These documents need to be sent to the 802 executive committee at the November Plenary.

Jonathan then volunteered Thomas Mathey to act as recording secretary for the meeting and went on to:
review the agenda, 
Bob Grow moved to approve the agenda and got an unanimously approval via voice vote

review the IEEE web site and E_Mail reflector
see:  http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/

request a Patent Policy pitch from the 802.3 Chair Geoff Thompson as follows:  (text copied/cribbed directly from the very excellent Merrimack minutes):  

Geoff Thompson, described the IEEE patent policy, and requested that all holders of patents related to the work of the study group become familiar with the policy and submit letters if appropriate. He also informed the group of the 802.3 policy to also request letters for patent applications. A description of the policy and example letters can be found at the IEEE web site (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/patent.html).

review the 
Requirements for Working Group Voting Membership
Attendance Book and policy for mis-signing
Future Meetings
Objectives for this week
Short Term and Long Term Schedule
Request For Presentations
Remaining Business
Closing Discussions

After introductions were made, Jonathan did a review of the existing PAR and 5 Criteria and emphasized that this is a review with no “on-the-fly-edits” at this time.

Using the 802.3z PAR as a starting point, several items were noted for revision, such as no repeater.  Howard Frazer pointed out that the “Title, Purpose, and Scope” were very important as this is what the public sees.

Using the 802.3z 5 Criteria as a starting point, each of the 5 points was reviewed for what content was required (new, delete, revise, enhance).

Monday, break from 10:37 am to 11:08 am.

Presentations

32 min.	Broad Market Potential for 10GbE - Update	139K	Nan Chen	Nortel Networks
12 min.	10 Gigabit Ethernet Market	50K	Howard Frazier	Cisco
37 min.	10GE Link Design for Scrambled Encode	230K	David Martin	Nortel Networks

Monday, break from 12:34 pm to 1:54 pm.

36min.	10GbE Implementation Architectures	42K	Roy Bynum	MCI Worldcom

62 min.	SONET Technology Primer	861K	Gary Nicholl	Cisco
12 min.	Two Physical Layers for 10 Gigabit Ethernet	20K	Howard Frazier	Cisco
? min.	Possible WAN PHY Objectives	141K	Iain Verigin	PMC-Sierra
12 min.	Packet Interface Standardization	17K	Scott Lowrey	Network Elements

Monday, meeting closes at 5:36 pm.

Tuesday, meeting opens at 9:00 am.

42 min.	XGMII Proposal	31K	Fabrice Verplanken	IBM
3 min.	Cabling Survey Ad Hoc 	9K	Bruce Tolley	3Com
60 min.	10Gig MII update	88K	Howard Frazier	Cisco

Tuesday, break from 10:57 am to 11:19 am.

40 min.	LAN and WAN Rate 10 GigE	181K	Paul Bottorff	Nortel Networks
14 min.	Economic Feasibility	87K	David Martin	Nortel Networks

Tuesday, break from 12:24 pm to 1:40 pm.

7 min.	Autonegotiation	43K	Rich Taborek	

Motion Madness, starts on Tuesday at 1:48 pm.

Howard Frazer does a review of the HSSG Objectives, and Jonathan Thatcher does a review of the 5 criteria for new people.  Each spends a few minutes.

Motion #1
	Move to adopt as objectives (a slide with the following text)
		1.  Speed of 10.000 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface
		2.  Define two families of PHYs
			A.  A LAN PHY, operating at a data rate of 10.000 Gb/s
			B.  A WAN PHY, operating at a data rate which is compatible with the payload rate of OC-192c/SDH VC-4-64c
		2.  Define a mechanism to adapt the MAC/PLS data rate to the data rate of the WAN PHY

	Moved:  Howard Frazer	Second:  Paul Bottorff	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Howard speaks to his objectives and answers questions for 30 minutes

	Discussion:
		JT	two PHYs means two families with possible multiple PMDs within each family (results in edit of slide)
		Kim, offers a not friendly amendment, Motion 1A
Motion 1A, not friendly
	Move to define one or more PHYs operating at a data rate of 10.000 Gb/s
	Moved:  Kim	Second:  Mike Salzman	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Discussion:
		MS	there are other ways to do a WAN PHY, and not enough presentations
		WT	speaks against this amendment, we now have a current compromise
	Vote:   Yes    3     No    92    A  15     Fails

	Discussion:  (back to main motion, #1)
		BT	note that this does not require SONET
		BQ	there is ambiguity on where line data rate is measured and what is included
		HF	the ambiguity is on purpose, we need more presentations to flush out the details
		WT	OK
		JT	speaks in favor, this breaks a dead-lock and is a best compromise.  
			there is no down side to this and provides sufficient space and wiggle room to accomplish our business
		NC	in favor, we can communicate with WAN directly
		HF	the reason for two is because there is NO consensus for one
		GT	I have a strong ambivalence
			history has shown that only one phy has survived
			objective can be modified with 75% vote
Motion 1B, not friendly
	Move to change define to consider
	Moved:  Nowell	Second:  Mike Dukek	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Vote:   Yes    28    No    57    A  17     Fails

	Discussion:  (back to main motion, #1)
		TD	Call the question
	Vote:   Yes    101    No    0    A  8     Pass
	This objective replaces last objective of sheet 1 of 2
	Specific note from chair:  0 people do not understand this

Motion #2
	Move to:  on HSSG sheet 2 of 2, strike the words “a family of” from the link length objective and remove “a link distance” and replace with “link distances”.
	Moved:    Fred Weniger	Second:   Brad Booth	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Vote:   passes unanimously via voice vote

Motion #3
	Move to:  add as a HSSG objective to support Auto-Negotiation
	Moved:   Rich Taborek	Second:   Tom Dineen	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Vote:   Yes       No       A      Fails

	Discussion:  
		GT	there are some compelling reasons to have this
			may challenge the WAN PHY
		JT	if this motion fails, the chair will still allow/encourage presentations on Auto-Negotiation
	Vote:   Yes  16     No  72     A   20   Fails

Chairman moves that we change the agenda and go on to the PAR and 5 Criteria, our priority #1.

Motion #4
	Move to:  Accept draft Criteria #1, Broad Market Potential
	Moved:   Howard Frazer 	Second:    Tom Dineen	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Discussion:  
		some minor tweaks to text, editor has license to match 802, 802.3, and supplement requirements
	Vote:   Yes  93     No   0    A  0    Passes

Motion #5
	Move to:  Accept draft Criteria #2, Compatibility with IEEE Standard 802.3
	Moved:   Bob Grow	Second:    Tom Dineen	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Discussion:  
		some minor tweaks to text
	Vote:   Yes  93     No   0    A  0    Passes

Motion #6
	Move to:  Accept draft Criteria #3, Distinct Identity
	Moved:   Bill Quackenbush	Second:    Tom Dineen	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Discussion:  
		some minor tweaks to text
	Vote:   Yes  97     No   0    A  0    Passes

Motion #7
	Move to:  Accept draft Criteria #4, Technical Feasibility
	Moved:   Walter Thirion	Second:    Rich Taborek	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Discussion:  
		we do not (at the start of this project) fully meet this criteria
	Vote:   Yes  77     No   0    A  4    Passes

Motion #8
	Move to:  Accept draft Criteria #5,Economic Feasibility
	Moved:   Tom Dineen	Second:    Hon Wan Chen	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Discussion:  
		we do not (at the start of this project) fully meet this criteria
	Vote:   Yes  80     No   0    A  1    Passes

Motion #un-numbered
	Move to:  For the PAR, leave the rest to the administrative hacks like Geoff Thompson
	Moved: 	Second:  	Technical, requires greater than 75%

	Discussion:  
		
	Vote:  passed by voice vote

Misc. 	Discussion:  
	 completion date for standard

Motion #9
	Move to:  Approve PAR
	Moved:   Bob Grow	Second:  Tom Dineen	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Vote:   Yes   71    No  0     A    0

Motion #10
	Move that HSSG request that the 802.3 chair distribute the draft PAR and 5 Criteria to the 802 exec for 30 day preview in anticipation of request for approval at the Nov 1999 802 plenary meeting.
	Moved:   David Law	Second:  Howard Frazer	Technical, requires greater than 75%
	Vote:   Yes   73    No  0     A    0

Tuesday, meeting closes at 6:00 pm.

Wednesday, meeting opens at 9:15 am.

Presentations

15 min.	MAC Pascal, Pacing Mechanism		Tom Mathey	Independent
18 min.	10 Gb/s serial, Low Cost Technology	438K	Jens Fiedler	Infineon
20 min.	10GE SerDes with GE Topology	294K	Henning Lysdal	GIGA
8 min.	Specifying Optical Modulation Amplitude	316K	Mark Donhowe
30 min.	10 Gigabit Ethernet Link Model	137K	Del Hanson	HP
15 min.	Link Modeling	32K	Rich Taborek
20 min.	The 10 Gb Ethernet, Single Mode Lasers	146K	David Dolfi
30 min.	Updates to MB810	1081K	Dae Young Kim	Chungnam Nat'l Univ

Wednesday, break from 12:10 pm to 1:40 pm.

Reports from the Ad Hoc groups

Shimon Muller
	MAC, Mgnt, Interfaces
		no “hot button” issues, just need to do the work
		what is the granularity of the the MAC Hold pacing mechanism
		MII interface:  data path width vs IPG size, expand vs shrink the IPG
		serial interface is a new request
		for mgnt, not a lot of imput yet

Rich Taborek
	PHY-PMD Evaluation Criteria
		posted to reflector (? web site)

Discussions
	Jonathan Thatcher
		We, both the group and the chairman, need more lead time for presentation in both soft and hard copy.  While not wanting an absolute requirement, we want to publish an agenda 1 week ahead.  We want to have presentations available on the web site no later than the Wednesday before the meeting.  Thus see action item for Howard Frazer.

	Geoff Thompson
		Closing comments

Wednesday, meeting closes at 2:30 pm.

Action Items for Jonathan Thatcher
1.  Place meeting notice for the January meeting, hosted by Shawn Rogers of TI, on the web site and send out e-mail.
2.  5 Criteria, item 5, Economic Feasibility
Chair to request presentations on use of Link Agg. vs 10 Gig for economic feasibility.
3.  Find a liaison to the TIA/FO groups, (?? SONET group(s) ??)
4.  Request presentations (including WAN) to support 5 Criteria, #5:  Economic Feasibility
5.  Blue book on web site
6.  Rename and/or add to name PMD to better reflect on the needed architecture
7.  Tutorial review for presentation at November Plenary
8.  

Action Items for Howard Frazer
1.  A new rule (including policy, mechanism, and guide lines) for presentations to cover both soft and hard copy availability.

Cheat Sheet for names:

		BQ	Bill Quackenbush
		BT	Bruce Trolly
		GT	Geoff Thompson
		HF	Howard Frazer
		JT	Jonathan Thatcher
		MS	Mike Salzman
		NC	Nan Che
		RT	Rich Taborek
		TD	Tom Dineen
		WT	Walter Thirion