RE: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
I think that there is one additional essential task:
C) Provide an ***optional*** PIC for each PMD indicating operation over the "extended temperature range."
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:19 AM
| To: firstname.lastname@example.org
| Subject: Re: [EFM] Moving forward on extended temperature range optics
| I think that the essential tasks are to:
| A) Ensure that all of the Active Optical Input and Active
| Optical Output
| parameters in clauses 58-60 can be met, and the corresponding links
| properly, across an "extended temperature range" of operation.
| B) Define what an "extended temperature range" is, and place this
| definition in
| an informative annex (Annex 66A) of P802.3ah.
| If we can do this, we will have satisfied our objectives and
| all of our
| motions on the subject, according to my interpretation.
| I believe that we are prepared to do this, and we should do this,
| without further
| delay. We will then have a follow on task to prove that optical
| components and
| links can simultaneously satisfy A and B above, and meet the
| 5 criteria.
| We are past the point of deciding "what we are going to do".
| Our job is to
| carry out our decisions, and to prove that we have done so to the
| of our Working Group and our Sponsor.
| Howard Frazier
| Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force
| Bruce Tolley wrote:
| > Piers
| > 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
| > 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
| > some of which are not exposed as external interfaces to end
| > 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.
| > Thanks
| > Bruce
| > 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: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
| >> > 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
| >> etc
| >> and
| >> 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
| >> 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.
| >> Piers
| >> > 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.
| >> > >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
| >> > >http://webapp.etsi.org/action%5COP/OP20030321/en_3000190104v0
| >> 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
| >> >conditions.
| >> >
| >> >IEC 60721-3-4 - Ed. 2.0 Classification of environmental
| >> - 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
| >> >https://domino.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/artnum/019208 .
| >> >
| >> >Piers
| >> Bruce Tolley
| >> Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
| >> Gigabit Systems Business Unit
| >> Cisco Systems
| >> 170 West Tasman Drive
| >> MS SJ H2
| >> 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
| > MS SJ H2
| > San Jose, CA 95134-1706
| > internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
| > ip phone: 408-526-4534