|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I understand that there was considerable discussion on yesterday’s ad hoc call, some relating to the work at hand, and some relating to confusion I inadvertently generated with my comments on the path forward.
First, again, apologies for not being able to make the call. I had a direct conflict with another meeting that I had to be at face-to-face.
I wanted to clarify a couple of items in my prior comments:
Hopefully that clears up the confusing issues that are just about process. Now, on to the hard stuff – getting our PAR and CSD modifications done.
Peter Jones shared a presentation that reflected our thoughts (yes, we missed the reference to twisted pair in the title – just a mistake). We need to work consensus on this text. I encourage and welcome discussion on the reflector of what modifications are necessary. I will remind you that we have a draft 1.0 already – the clarity and detail that further specify our solutions to the objectives are (or at least should be) reflected in that document. We should not try to write the specification in the objectives. At this point, minimal, surgical changes are needed.
I also understand that there was some discussion as to the characteristics of the mixing segment. The mixing segment definition will be reflected in the draft 1.0 and you are free to comment on it there, as well as what may be needed in the objectives. It is my thought that the mixing segment can have more than 4 connectors, as there could be one per node. In the topology presentations (e.g., kaindl_matheus_3cg_01c_09_2017.pdf ) I do not recall seeing connectors other than for attaching the nodes. I’d like to ask some of the proponents whether this is a correct assumption – specifically, are there ‘inliners’ (inline connectors) which connect the portions of the mixing segment, but do not attach a node, and, is it correct to assume nodes are attached to stubs which are bridged to the mixing segment at an inline connector? To discuss this further, please use a subject tag on the reflector like MIXING SEGMENT
There was one more issue that I saw raised, related to the distinct identity CSD. I believe that our existing ‘distinct identity’ CSD could use a little more tweaking to reflect that we are a PHY project. I know of no other PHY project with a data rate of 10Mbps on a single pair media. (10BASE2 is specified on a coax (see clause 10.5.2.1.1) - I don’t recall ever seeing the term “single pair” being applied to a coax.). Also, 10BASE2 is purely half-duplex (cannot support full duplex) and detects collisions on the media (rather than at a gate at the PHY), so 802.3cg is distinctly different in that it can support full duplex (long reach pt-to-pt does, and in all discussions short-reach pt-to-pt supports full duplex at least optionally), and gates collisions at the MII. Our job is how to word that difference. I suggest we take that to another reflector thread to discuss those issues, maybe tagged 10BP CSD CHANGES.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Chair, IEEE P802.3cg 10 Mb/s Single Twisted Pair Ethernet Task Force
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications