|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
It bounced for some reason…
Sorry we missed the call.
I would note that explicitly adding 50G at this time invites “no” votes right now, as there are no other 50G MAC projects.
The existing idea was that the 100G PHY would be made in such a way as to allow reduced rate (i.e., fewer channel) operation. Why does this not suffice?
Also, such degradation would not require seeking special permission from the parent group. As a case in point, 10GEPON actually is a 8.7GEPON. We chose to do FEC sub-rating.
So the actual MAC rate is lower than normal, using the forcing of larger inter-packet gaps. Again, why do we think the reduce rate 100G would be any different?
Please let me know if I need to add to or revise the notes below. Note, Marek’s contribution for the meeting is attached.
IEEE 802.3 NG-EPON Study Group Work Items and Socialization
· Review of Guidelines for IEEE-SA meetings.
o Has anyone not seen these Guidelines? Everyone has seen the guidelines
· November meeting
o Study Group meeting times (tentative but likely):
§ Tuesday, 11/10, 1 pm – 5:30 pm
§ Wednesday, 11/11, 9 am – 5:30 pm
§ Thursday, 11/12, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm
· CSD/PAR/Objectives timeline
· Deliverables for Plenary
o Comments due from 802 by 6:30 pm 11/10. Comments resolved by 6:30 pm 11/11
· Critical/Baseline decisions (reference Marek’s presentation attached to email)
o Pros and cons of channel bonding at different sublayers – below MII, above MII, above MAC
o Fiber data (see slide 8)
o Channel model (see slide 8)
o See Marek’s presentation for additional key baseline decisions
· Leads for areas
o Group was asked to consider high level areas for which a lead would be identified to drive the contributions and decisions for that area. Examples are architecture, features, baseline, etc.
o This would be different from creating ad hoc committees. While less formal than ad hocs, there would be improved organization with leads identified
o Task force members can contribute wherever they want – there are no restrictions.
o Scope of PAR: might need to add something to the scope to allow for rates between 25G and 100G, or something about degraded rates. Exceeding the scope by doing 50G, for example, when we’ve only mentioned 25G and 100G, could bring some “no” votes because it doesn’t match the scope.
§ Two augmentations to the scope: intermediate MAC rates, “symmetric and/or asymmetric operation” (like in .3av)
o Risk: if we don’t change the scope, then we risk not getting approval in 2 years when we do sponsor ballot. If we do change the PAR, people might think it’s too big of a change and vote no. The commenting process is used to make changes to the PAR all the time. We need to make sure we have a good story regarding these changes.
o Group initially considered scope as a minimum, which allowed operation at 50 Gbps, but it turns out this is not the case. The scope places upper bounds on the project.
o Proposed scope change: The scope of this project is to amend IEEE Std 802.3 to add physical layer specifications and management parameters for symmetric and/or asymmetric operation at 25 Gb/s, 50 Gb/s, and 100 Gb/s MAC data rates on point-to-multipoint passive optical networks.
Director, Optical Technologies
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027