Thanks! The list below sounds great to me.
I think we can also put together a general guideline schedule so we can try to time the submission of the contributions to meet a completion target for the standard. To that end, here is what I proposed, with one correction (as Hesham pointed out) and
a target baseline date:
- Start TF: Interim on January 2016
- Last new proposal and baseline: May 2016 Interim
- Last new feature and start WG ballots: September 2016 Interim
- Last tech change: January 2017 Interim
- Request LMSC ballot: March 2017 Plenary
- Complete Sponsor Ballot: November 2017 Plenary
- Ratify standard: December 2017 SA Board Meeting
The above timeline represents a 24-month effort, which is 6 months longer than 3.by has planned. I think that this might be doable if we cooperatively work towards that goal. Maybe we can take a straw poll during our meeting next week?
I think all are great ideas:
(1) discuss deliverables for Plenary (obviously, most important and time critical),
(2) Establish critical/baseline decisions list (and prioritize as much as possible),
(3) Estimate timeline (Of course it will likely change based on pace of contributions, etc., like even the best project plans change)
(4) Identify contributors for baseline material
(5) Use weekly meetings to discuss items from (2) and establish consensus (this will be most effective if majority of people attend the weekly calls,
so there are no surprises at first Task Force meeting)
I think these items should be the focus on the next several weeks, and thank you both for the excellent suggestions!
We have at least one more meeting of Study Group before we become a Task Force, and we can use this time to discuss technical matters. What we cannot
do is take any decisions that would be binding the future Task Force. We can however, straw poll everything and get temperature of the room. We would need contributions to that end for sure.
I agree that we do not need to plan all the possible details and contingences – contrary to some other projects, we are moving here in a bit of an
uncharted territory and there are too many variables to account for when setting the schedule. A general guideline for expectation when the project would be done is welcome, but we might have to adjust that, as we go through the project – that is what happened
in .3av at the time.
I suggest we discuss the deliverables we need for the next meeting on the upcoming call. More, we should identify key people who are willing to work
on these. Getting a list is one thing, but getting people to commit is quite the other ;)
I wonder if we could get a baseline proposal by our first meeting. Perhaps this is not likely for us to achieve given that we need to make several big technical
decisions. However, I think that is not as necessary as to have a well defined plan, including a complete set of deliverables and appropriate timeline. More important than anything, I think we need to tackle the critical decisions (such as single lane line
rate, modulation, scaling approach, optical spectrum allocation, etc.) quickly and effectively. So, if we take a well organized divide-and-conquer approach with a good cooperative teamwork activity, I think that’s the recipe for moving things along quickly.
If that makes sense, in addition to establishing the target timeline, we should work as soon as possible on the list of required decisions and the related
known deliverables. Maybe this is the best thing we could do during our first call next week?
I believe Marek is correct. This process has been used on other projects, the best examples being 802.3ak-2004 10GBASE-CX4 and 802.3bg-2011 40Gb/s
Ethernet Single-mode Fibre PMD and now P802.3by.These projects were able to copy existing clauses and make *relatively* small edits to create their drafts, which is an advantage. That does not change the fact that consensus had to be achieved up-front,
nor to imply that these projects did not require a great deal of effort.
Steven B. Carlson
Chair, IEEE P802.3bp 1000BASE-T1 PHY Task Force
Chair, IEEE P802.3bw 100BASE-T1 PHY Task Force
Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group
High Speed Design, Inc.
Looking at their email exchange and history of calls they had: they had a number of calls before their first F2F Task Force meeting, during which
they reached broad industry consensus which lead to baseline proposal at the first F2F meeting and its approval. I might have phrased the previous email incorrectly
I believe this was achieved by offline consensus building, where Task Force was ready to approve the previously agreed baseline at the first F2F meeting
Apologies for the delay.
Thank you for the suggestions below. In looking through all this information, do you (or anyone else) know how the .3by task force accomplished a
“baseline” coincident with the first task force meeting? To follow a similarly aggressive timeline would mean we need “baseline” in January.
Following up on the discussion after the meeting, I think it would be great if we could start putting together a “project plan” for the Task Force. Marek already
started working on something along those lines with one of his contributions (attached). It would be great if we could expand on Marek’s contribution to outline all the areas of the spec that would need to be worked on (I understand some are unknown), put
together a tentative plan for required discussions/contributions, and an overall project timeline that would lead us to the following tentative targets and tentative dates:
Start TF: Interim on January 18th
Last new proposal: May 2016 Interim
Last new feature and start WG ballots: September 2016 Interim
Last tech change: January 2016 Interim
Request LMSC ballot: March 2017 Plenary
Complete Sponsor Ballot: November 2017 Plenary
Ratify standard: December 2017 SA Board Meeting
For reference I attached below the plan for 802.3by (25G Ethernet, which was very aggressive). Hopefully we can do a lot of planning during these weekly meetings
that leads us to an approved target timeline during the 1st TF meeting in January and the expeditious development of the standard.
Curtis Knittle <C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 1:32 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON <STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Lup Ng' <Lup.ng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jorge Salinger <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Tucker, Ryan R" <Ryan.Tucker@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Feldman <Dave.Feldman@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Matt Petersen <matt.petersen@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hesham ElBakoury <Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Abbott, John S Dr'" <AbbottJS@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Oakley <Phil.Oakley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Fernando Villarruel <villarf@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'derek.cassidy@xxxxxx'" <derek.cassidy@xxxxxx>, "'hanhyub@xxxxxxxxxx'" <hanhyub@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Glen Kramer <gkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Peters, Michael'" <MPeters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Shankar Hariharan (shhariha)'" <shhariha@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx'" <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Ten, Sergey Y'" <TenS@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Miguelez <Phil_Miguelez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'harkyoo@xxxxxxxxxx'" <harkyoo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Lokhandwala, Moiz'" <moiz.lokhandwala@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Ulm, John'" <John.Ulm@xxxxxxxxx>,
'Allard van der Horst' <ahorst@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Douglas Jones <Douglas_Jones3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Harstead Edward E (Ed)" <ed.harstead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Pondillo, Peter L'" <PondilloPL@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'tago@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tago@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Powell <bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Franz.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx'" <Franz.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Albrecht.Rommel@xxxxxxxxxx'" <Albrecht.Rommel@xxxxxxxxxx>,
'Francois Menard' <fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Canceled: NG-EPON Study Group weekly meeting
1. Please join my meeting.
2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting