| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Folks, As you know, I have strong opinions on the topic of MDI specification in the 802.3cg draft. In Vienna we decide to remove references to IEC 63171-1 and IEC 63171-6 from both 146 and
147 based on my comments. Regardless of my personal position, comment r02-14 from Chris proposes to restore IEC 63171-1 to both 146 and 147. Based on the discussion below, I see three options proposed to address this comment.
If there is a comment you feel strongly about, particularly if you don’t think you will be at the meeting, it would probably help others and the cause of building
consensus, if you send that statement to the reflector and indicate the comment number it applies to.
Given the history of this question, I want to work towards a “sticky” consensus, that reduces the likelihood of us revisiting this question again. We need to consider the likely reaction
of the voters in sponsor ballot pool, the members of the TF, and what’s best for the draft.
To help with that I’d like to get a feeling for where this group is. If this is an important topic for you and you will not be in Milwaukee, please join this conversation so we can hear
your position. Regards ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Jones Cisco Systems
Dist. Engineer 170 West Tasman Dr. Enterprise Networks San Jose, CA, 95134, USA. Wrk: +1 408 525 6952 US Mob: +1 408 315 8024 Email: petejone at cisco.com Web:
about.me/petergjones Webex:
https://cisco.webex.com/join/petejone
-------------------------------------------------------------- From: Valerie Maguire <Valerie_Maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> Dear Task Force Members, Like Amrik, I also will not be able to attend the Milwaukee meeting, but feel very strongly about this issue. My primary concerns are that an MDI connector interface recommendation is not required to make our amendment technically complete
and any MDI reference reintroduction is likely to cause more than just the one negative vote that the current state of having no IEC 63171 references at all has resulted in. While I appreciate Amrik’s effort to build consensus by reverting back to the draft 3.0 (2 two connectors, no “E” restrictions) text, this is highly problematic for me. Specifically, a preference for the IEC 63171-1 connector or the IEC
63171-6 connector or any other connector to be used in all “E” environments has never been made in a peer reviewed manner. Neither experts at TIA and ISO/IEC nor within the IEEE 802.3 community have made such a determination based on an agreed-upon set of
desired features and functionality. More problematic, the U.S., China, Mexico, and several other countries didn’t select either the -1 or the -6 connector as preferred in E1 environments. There simply isn’t clear consensus and we don’t have the technical input
needed to make this recommendation today. Further, after listening carefully at the last meeting to the rationale that having to choose between two plug-and-play connectors is problematic for PHY developers, I don’t see how re-adopting this text is helpful.
Finally, reverting back to this text introduces confusion as neither the -1 connector nor the -6 connector is especially suited for multidrop implementations. The remedy to #
r02-14, as
suggested by the commenter, is highly problematic for the same reason (lack of a peer review based on an agreed-upon set of desired features and functionality) and likely to draw multiple negative votes from folks who prefer the -6 interface over the
-1 interface for their implementation. I believe that speedy publication of this amendment is best for adoption of single-pair Ethernet and believe that we are best served by focusing our efforts working content that is required to make the draft technically complete. I strongly
recommend making no change to 146.8.1 or 147.9.1. Thanks – Val From: Amrik Bains (ambains) <00000bd79f1f9304-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Colleagues, I will not be attending Milwaukee meeting, but wanted to suggest different remedy to comment r02-14 on clause 146.8.1/147.9.1 by Christopher
Diminico (Please see comment at the end of the email) which suggest to add IEC 63171-1 to 8023cg_D3dp2, but does not include IEC 63171-6.
We have had long discussions, various proposals, straw polls, motions and have built consensus, but not fully satisfying everyone.
I also think IEEE 802.3 should provide some direction as “may be used” for the eco-system to develop MDI connector/interface. This means we should not over restrict
MDI connector by tying to different applications such as – Automotive, Industrial or Enterprise or any other application as in 8023cg_D3dp1 CL 146.8.1 and CL 147.9.1. Number of task force attendees from OEMs, Cable, Test Equipment and Connector industries drafted text and built consensus that allows eco-system to use MDI connector
as required by their application built conscious in the sections below. “8023cg_D3dp0 CL 146.8.1 page 153 line 6 to page 155 line 7 AND 8023cg_ D3dp CL 147.9.1 page 200 line 17 to page 202 line 54” Note: IEC 610176-125 reference needs to be changed to IEC 63171-6 Suggested Remedy Take text and figures
“8023cg_D3dp0 CL 146.8.1 page 153 line 6 to page 155 line 7”
Insert in 802cg_D3dp2 CL 146.8.1 page 171 line 46 But correct reference IEC 610176-125 TO IEC 63171-6. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as need …………………………….. Take the test and figures
8023cg_ D3dp0 CL 147.9.1 page 200 line 17 to page 202 line 54” Insert in 802cg_D3dp2 CL 146.9.1 page 220 line 45, But correct reference IEC 610176-125 TO IEC 63171-6. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed Regards, Amrik Bains Cl
146
SC 146.8.1
P
179 L
1
# r02-14 Comment Type
TR *** Comment submitted with the file 101659700003-diminico_3cg_01_0819.pdf attached *** The continued success of BASE-T technology is largely predicated on leveraging the cost-effectiveness and plug-and-play simplicity ensured by compatibility at the MDI. We need to be forward thinking in developing a compatible user interface for BASE-T1. The MDI is to specify mechanical compatibility and electrical specifications not EMC conformance. Suggested Remedy 146.8.1 MDI connectors -Page 179, Line 1 add text; Connectors meeting the mechanical requirements of IEC 63171-1 may be used as the mechanical interface to the balanced cabling. The plug connector is used on the balanced cabling and the MDI jack connector on the PHY. Re-instate IEC 63171-1 plug and jack figures from D3.1. with text below. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed. The IEC 63171-1 plug and jack are depicted (for informational use only) in Figure 146-29 and Figure 146-30 respectively, and the mating interface is depicted in Figure 146-31. The assignment of PMA signals to connector contacts for PHYs are given in Table 146-8. 147.9.1 MDI connectors -Page 227, Line 1 add text; Connectors meeting the mechanical requirements of IEC 63171-1 may be used as the mechanical interface to the balanced cabling. The plug connector is used on the balanced cabling and the MDI jack connector on the PHY. Re-instate IEC 63171-1 plug and jack figures from D3.1. with text below. Editorial license to revise figure numbers as needed. The IEC 63171-1 plug and jack are depicted (for informational use only) in Figure 147-21 and Figure 147-22 respectively and the mating interface is depicted in Figure 147-23. The assignment of PMA signals to connector contacts for PHYs are given in Table 147-3. These connectors should support link segment DCR characteristics for 1.02 mm (18 AWG) to 0.40 mm (26 AWG) in Table 146B-1.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1 |