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

RE: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics


I am not exactly sure why you felt compelled to disagree with what was 
essentially an invitation to a meeting, but here goes

1) Network operator requirements
Yes not all the network operators from every region of the world are coming 
to our meetings, but I think it speaks to broad market potential to listen 
to the customers who care enough to come and participate in the debate.

Yes, network operators want all kinds of things and often different things, 
but we are discussing optical PMDs across extended temperature here. Let's 
not cloud the issue. We do not have goals to define fire safety or 48V DC 
power over fiber optic cabling.

2) Scope
We have a goal that defines the scope. Just because we have not done things 
in the past, does not mean we cannot do it in this project if it is within 
our charter as defined by the PAR and our objectives.  802.3 never worked 
on an electrical power spec and it is now completing (rapidly I hope) 
the  DTE power.
We define many interfaces and performance parameters in our documents some 
of which are not exposed as external interfaces to end customers or 
testable by end customers.

3) Interpretation of Past motions
The thread of motions shows that we are trying to fulfill the objective but 
we are not quite sure of the path to success.  My personal opinion is that 
if the extended temperature ranges are only informative, we will not be 
fulfilling the objective. Some good work has gone into the draft, but we 
still have some real technical work to do. The Task Force voted down the 
motion that said P802.3ah would define two sets of optical PMDs but gave us 
no clear direction on how to move forward.



At 03:54 PM 1/23/2003 +0100, piers_dawe@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Bruce, Brian and Richard,
>I'd like to point out where this chain of thought goes wrong, especially 
>as the logical disconnects have been repeated later in the thread.  See below:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Tolley [mailto:btolley@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 16 January 2003 19:59
> > To:;
> > Subject: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
> >
> > Piers and all
> >
> > I gave my self the action to help move forward the outstanding issue
> > regarding extended temperature ranges for P2P and P2MP optics
> >
> > We have an objective to include in our specification of PHYs,
> > support for
> > extended temperature range optics
>Yes.  Support, not mandatory requirement.
> > The task force has in the past passed motions to specify EFM
> > optics at -40
> > to +85 C
>To specify the optics, not the temperature.  This is very clear from the 
>January and March 2002 motions.  See e.g. the March Joiner motion "The 
>basis for the first draft of the 802.3ah 1000Base-LX extended temperature 
>objective be met with text that uses 1000Base-LX 5 km single mode 
>specification (clause 38) as the starting point with the following changes 
>and additions:
>- Informative temperature range -40-+ 85 deg C
>January Motion #11
>Motion: to create informative annex to address environmental considerations.
>Mover: Chris DiMinico
>Second: Alan Flatman
> > Network operators have on multiple occasions communicated the
> > requirement
> > for extended temperature solutions.
>This is where the logic really falls apart.
>First, is it not just a small subset of network operators (US ones) who 
>aren't installing much FTTB.  Other network operators may have different 
>physical strategies, climates, and requirements.
>Second, network operators need many things; working capital, fire safety, 
>an electricity supply...  It does not follow that 802.3 is bound to 
>provide any of them.  Environmental requirements such as these are out of 
>scope of this standard - that's why temperature is to be addressed in an 
>informative annex.
>Of course, customers will impose environmental requirements in their 
>procurement specs - and Telcordia specs for example are effectively, 
>procurement specs.
> > As recently as the Vancouver meeting, several box vendors
> > (including me)b
> > communicated the requirement for extended temperature range
> > optics.
>Same lack of connected logic.  Someone's need doesn't mean that 802.3 is 
>bound to supply.  Temperature specs are available in the market from other 
>sources, who have more expertise in the matter.
> > We need
> > to agree on a path to move forward.
> >
> > So if interested parties want to forward to me their email
> > addresses, I
> > will host a conference call next week dedicated to this
> > issue. I think we
> > need to focus on a test specified in each PMD clause, to agree on the
> > ranges for OLT and ONU optics, to consider the possible
> > special case of
> > bidis that include 1550 nm DFBs, and to identify any PMD that
> > might only
> > need to be supported at standard, commercial temperatures.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Bruce Tolley
> > Cisco Systems
> >
> >   At 04:11 PM 1/8/2003 +0100, piers_dawe@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > >G.983.3 refers to ETS 300 019.  This is a very readable series of
> > >documents from the European Telecommunications Standards
> > Institute, giving
> > >a classification of environmental conditions, e.g. weatherprotected
> > >locations, non-weatherprotected, underground.  It uses four
> > classes of
> > >climatic conditions:
> > >         "applies to most of Europe"
> > >         extended
> > >         extremely cold
> > >         extremely warm dry
> > >
> > >And even better, up-to-date drafts are available on the web, e.g. at
> > >
>20101o.pdf .
> >
> >It is not the business of 802 to pick between these classes but we can
> >refer the readers of our standard to this information.
> >
> >ITU-T and ANSI T1 do not have similar documents.
> >
> >Both G.983.3 and refer to IEC 60721, classification of environmental
> >conditions.
> >
> >IEC 60721-3-4 - Ed. 2.0  Classification of environmental conditions - Part
> >3: Classification of groups of environmental parameters and their
> >severities - Section 4: Stationary use at non-weatherprotected
> >locations  1995-01 is available for CHF99 at
> > .
> >
> >Piers
>Bruce Tolley
>Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
>Gigabit Systems Business Unit
>Cisco Systems
>170 West Tasman Drive
>San Jose, CA 95134-1706
>internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
>ip phone: 408-526-4534

Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
ip phone: 408-526-4534