Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[EFM] FW: IEEE802.3 EFM Process

EFM members,
Although the thread below is focused on EFM P2MP, I would like to extend this thread by proposing that Richard's and Larry's comments not be taken only as far as P2MP fiber (EPON) is concerned. I believe these concepts have validity regarding the EFM-Copper endeavors as well. Additionally, compliance should not be focused only on 80x issues, but on compliance regarding external agencies and standards bodies.
The EFM-Copper effort is working in the Access space, one with requirements outside the typical LAN scenario and is a regulated space, as well. The areas of difference from the copper access space to a LAN include:

I believe that the EFM-Copper effort should consider an approach to its Objectives that has been broadly hinted at by our Chairman, “maintain the IEEE tradition and ‘borrow’ someone else’s existing PHY.” Toward this end, I recommend that the TPS layers (PMD, etc.) be left aside for the standards bodies that have already done this work (ANSI, ITU, ETSI). These bodies, and the local regulatory agencies (FCC,...) will eventually dictate the band plans appropriate for the local loop, therefore we should be working on conformance, as stated already in our Objective #2, and initially concentrate on the adaptation layer and MAC. Included in this work should be collaboration with these other standards bodies in an attempt to extend their existing definitions of the Packet Transport Mode layer to enable better Ethernet functionality above it. Moreover, the EFM-Copper effort should not consider additional efforts that conflict with the band plans or line coding definitions already codified, as this may be in conflict with Objectives established and result in a standard that may not be accepted for use in bundles where regulated services exist.


John Egan

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brand [mailto:rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:22 PM
To: larry rennie
Cc: Dolors Sala; Glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx; jc.kuo@xxxxxxxxxxxx; rhirth@xxxxxxxxxxxx; onn.haran@xxxxxxxxxxx; ariel.maislos@xxxxxxxxxxx; kobi.mizrahi@xxxxxxxxxxxx; HHvostov@xxxxxxxxxxxx; RShamsi@xxxxxxxxxxxx; eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; meir@xxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxxxx; cicook@xxxxxxxxx; carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ajay@xxxxxxxxxxxx; limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx; jpickens@xxxxxxxxx; jcpoint@xxxxxxxx; lior.khermosh@xxxxxxxxxxx; gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; vincent.bemmel@xxxxxxxxxxxx; johngeorge@xxxxxxxxxx; wsoto@xxxxxxxxx; stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roy Bynum; Kent McCammon; puru kamat; DeNap
Subject: Re: IEEE802.3 EFM Process

LA Attendees:
I was unable to attend anything but the beginning of the ah meeting on Wednesday, but I am supportive of Larry Rennie's proposal with one addition. Even as one who has been participating in 802.3 standards for some time and understands the importance of backwards compatibility to "legacy" Ethernet and 802.1, there is no denying that the Ethernet in the First Mile space puts us squarely into new territory outside of the LAN box.  This environment is not the enterprise environment, with the need for extended temp requirements (the ONU for sure) and it brings a new set of potential as well as future asymmetric applications.  Knowing that our charter is narrowly defined as L1/L2 and our objectives must match that space, the future of our industry demands our creative thinking about the services that could be provided on various implementations of the 802.3ah infrastructure.  We have already spent many hours of presentations in the Study Group on these.   We do not have to shut off that input yet, but is now time to establish a process that puts 802.X compliance in as a check but not as a gate at this time point.
My addition would be to establish an Ad Hoc/advisory group that would sit between the "Modifications to 802.3 and Other Standards Required to Meet Objectives" box and the "Existing Objectives and Criteria" box.  This group would constantly review the compliance vs objectives issues including any new proposed objectives (note the small "o" in objectives).
The timing of the process proposed by Larry would be critical to our completion of a document in a timely fashion, and we would have to adhere to that schedule in order for the process to be successful.

Richard Brand

larry rennie wrote:

In listening to the presentations and responses at last weeks meeting, there was always the constant question of compliance. We need a structured methodology of dealing with this question.  During the talks I sketched a very top level flow diagram approach.  Copy attached.  It is an  iterative process.  I believe we first need a strawman architecture that meets the criteria and objectives, always keeping 802.3 compliance as a goal in mind but not letting it control the initial architecture design to the point that prevents us from even getting to a strawman design that meets our criteria and objectives.   After we have a strawman design that meets our criteria and objectives, we then look at 802.3 compliance.  If not compliant we look at what modifications we could make to our objectives in order to get a viable 802.3 compliant architecture (and resulting EFM standard). If this is not possible, then we then have to look at the modifications needed to the existing 802.3stds (and other stds, such as 802.1) in order to come up with a viable EFM standard.

Toward this end, I suggest that at the end of each presentation (particularly architecture related presentations) that an 802.3  compliance matrix be included with emphasis on what not is compliant and what existing standard changes are necessary for compliance of the subject matter in the presentation.



Dolors Sala wrote:

We had a good discussion during the meeting on requirements. The
feedback on the forwarding rules was to present this problem to 802.1
for a possible incorporation of this functionality at the 802.1 layer.
Hence the discussion on this topic is put on hold in the requirements
effort. It will continue with the preparation of the presentation
to 802.1 group.

The idea of this email is to define the objectives of the requirements,
both short term for the November meeting and longer term to capture the
general scope to be considered.

Suggested list of issues is included below. Comments and modifications
are welcome. The focus of the effort can be modified accordingly.

The suggestion is to focus first on 802.3x compliance. To start
the discussion, the first question on this topic is the following.
Both Pause and link aggregation are specified for full-duplex operation.
Is an 802.3 requirement to support them in PON since it is a shared
medium? If it is not, then this requirement is not a
compliance issue but rather a definition issue. In this case,
should they be supported?


Overall objectives of requirements effort:
    1 Discussion of the remaining requirements
        (see list below, and suggest additions
        if list is not complete)
    2 Polishing/agreement of existing requirements
        The current document needs to be polished
        to clean any concerns of out of scope
        specification. So we have some work in
        there to reduce the specification and
        reach agreement.

    3 Peer-to-peer and bridging compliance
        (in a separate presentation
        in Nov meeting)

General objectives for the requirements effort
Pending topics for discussion:
    1- 802.3 clause 31B (PAUSE mechanism)
    2- 802.3 clause 43 (link aggregation)
    3- Link security
        3.1 yes/no
        3.2 specific functionality
    4- PON-specific OAM

It was a question during the requirements presentation on the
consideration of OAM requirements.
The initial idea was to leave item 4 for the OAM subgroup,
and concentrate on the system and protocol issues in this one. Any OAM
PON-protocol specific cannot be specified until the baseline protocol is
defined. Hence the idea was/is to only focus on this part of OAM in this
discussion. And hence leave it as the last topic for the discussion.
Comments on this are welcome.

Objectives for Nov meeting
Given that there is only 3 weeks for next meeting, a good
objective could be to continue the discussion of the pending
requirements. The suggestion would be to focus first on 802.3x
compliance (pause, link aggregation) and then on the need (yes/no)
of security.

n:Brand;Richard C.
tel;work:408 495 2462
org:Advanced Technology Investments;Nortel Networks (408) 495 2462
title:Director, Network Architecture & Applications
fn:Richard C. Brand