802.3z interim meeting minutes; Bellevue, WA (Seattle) from Monday, Febuary 2 1998 to Tuesday, Febuary 2 1998 it is expected that the agenda and all presentations/handouts will placed on the web site this document is formatted to print in font Geneva, size 9 point ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monday, February 2 1998 Speaker identification codes BG Bob Grow BL Bruce LaVigne BrB Brad Booth CD Chris Diminico DC David Cunnington DH Del Hanson DL David Law EG Ed Grivna DK Don Knasel GOT Geoff Thompson HF Howard Frazier HJ Howard Johnson JT Jonathan Thatcher PT Pat Thayer RS Rich Seifert RT Rich Taborek SH Steve Haddock SK Sumesh Kaul SM Shimon Muller SS Steve Swanson TD Tom Dineen WT Walt Thirion 8:45 HF Chair, Howard Frazier, calls meeting to order. Howard starts the meeting by presenting and handing out the Agenda agenda slide 1/11, cover sheet agenda slide 2/11, Agenda presentation agenda slide 3/11, item 3: P802.3z/D4.0 Sponsor ballot results sponsor ballot passes an unusual occurrence is 16 TRs commenters but only 13 disapprove ballots agenda slide 4/11, Standards development timeline Howard makes very clear the possible 3 month or longer slip to schedule agenda slide 5/11, E-Mail reflector 8:52 agenda slide 6/11, FTP/Web sites save this hand-out page 8:54 agenda slide 7/11, Comment resolution 8:58 breakout process optics & fiber in the large room, all others to the smaller room 9:00 agenda slide 8/11, Big Ticket item 9:08 the objective is to have complete comment resolution on all items except optical 9:11 agenda slide 9/11, #1 big ticket item: after 22 weeks, it is still #1 on the Gigabit Hit Parade Differential Mode Delay on MMF 9:14 DC multi-page talk on the MBI group 9:38 GOT today is Ground Hog day, we may have to repeat this task until we get it right HJ Howie reviewed each of the major areas and what needs to be done for each group 9:44 HF (a friendly member of the Task Force points out that the chair has skipped a couple of important agenda items) Select recording secretary Tom Mathey from Baynetworks volunteers handout of attendance books 9:46 HJ handout for Hot Items handout on P802.3z/D4 Sponsor Ballot, Comment Resolution slide 2/4, comment statistics slide 3/4, meaning of status codes & the process 9:55 slide 4/4, available reports discussion on the Hot Items piece #1: hot items, 4 sheets piece #2: report by comment ID, 8 sheets piece #3: technical report, 39 sheets piece #4: editorial report, 53 sheets 9:59 GOT request to add a time-stamp to all print-outs Each clause editor is requested to provide a short summary of their big ticket, hot items 10:00 BG Clause 22, Comment #24 on Management Frame Summary: Comment is on use of Management Frame, and the request is to eliminate the use of the term "management frame". The basic problem is that the text is in 802.3u, therefore this is a 802.3u issue, and there is an open 802.3u maintenance PAR to which this could be added. 10:04 HF gave a brief history of Management Frame it is self contained within clause 22 this is a stylistic issue 10:07 GOT this is not a good item to add to sponsor ballot recirculation DL Motion #1: Accept response to comment #24 as written by clause editor. Moved: David Law Second: Shimon Muller 10:11 GOT amendment: Defer consideration until Tuesday afternoon (slide overlay) Moved: Geoff Thompson Second: Bill Quackenbush Yes: 17 No: 12 Abstain: 0 Procedural >50%, Passes Task Force conclusion: See notes for Tuesday, time 4:24 10:14 BG Clause 22, Comment #78 no technical change is intended, only clarification and readability 10:15 RT Clause 37, Comment #14 on remote fault signalling this is a technical refinement 10:18 HJ does this requested change break existing silicon, it must be OK with receivers 10:22 there are 3 possible options for this comment 1. no change 2. big change, affects existing silicon 3. signal remote fault every so often, the bits are sticky 10:24 HF a bit of history on Remote Fault & Link Failure 1. the local device may be stuck in reset sending code words of 0 note: during break-out session, the PCS group concluded that during reset the local device does not transmit, based on a change introduced to resolve another comment. 2. the local device may be powered on but not configured 3. Howard discussed the importance to distinguish between the 2 possibilities SM why worry about existing silicon PT we owe a debt to pre-standard implementations RT the current response is option #1, no change HF we did not go far enough in original definition of remote fault 10:22 votes for the 3 options 1. 26 2. 0 3. 18 10:36 JT Optical Jumpers HF we can not discuss specific prices here 10:41 slide with multiple choices 10:43 DH we are ahead of ourselves here, need MBI input lots of discussion on: relative costs, what are the choices, per port costs, where is the cost placed on multiple types of transceivers or on jumper cables 10:55 time to move on 10:57 HF agenda slide 10/11, Optics Options: each of the options is covered by HF Discussion 11:05 Chris when to and/or any need to change PAR objectives WT I would resist a split of the standard 11:12 DC yes, there is a real world problem GOT what is our objective, or there are 2 separate issues here 1. installed base with a jumper 2. new installation (with a better grade of fiber) PT a change to option #6 is a better fiber specification response of: this does not keep to schedule, and to characterize a new specification takes time and effort there is negative press on shorter distances 11:16 TD it is politically difficult to delay the standard HJ what can the MBI group do with option #1 HF what is the expected MBI timeline and expected risk levels there are risks here for option #1 Mark need a chart for option #4 SH really want option #1 11:20 Bob must keep MMF in standard DH the MBI group needs a response from the user community GOT a crisp decision is needed for how to do the cut JT risks are unknown for option #1 HF the real world cable is not up to (its own) specification DC not just the fiber cable, a double whammy with transceiver Paul the early installed fiber base is questionable in quality Brian option #5 is still possible Tom for the customer, is any test equipment available to qualify the cable 11:35 response of: NO, perhaps could be built but is not available today 11:38 HF time to go to break-out sessions DH MBI task is open for comment resolution, what is the context? response: do not discard any part of the standard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, February 3 1998 Note: The proceedings were hampered by some very loud and obnoxious noises produced by workers who were repairing a broken sewer main directly outside the meeting room. This made communication difficult, until a PA system was brought into the room. The chair wishes to thank the Task Force members for their tolerance of this unfortunate situation. 3:15 HF Chair, Howard Frazier, calls meeting to order. Howard starts the meeting with comment resolution on the big ticket items 3:15 Clause 39, Comment #61 on Style-1 vs Style-2 connector HF this comment was submitted for Jay Neer of Molex Jay presents slides on DB-9 connector characteristics Motion #2: Remove "recommended" for -2 vs -1 from D4.0 (remove sentence in D4.0, page 39.9, line 12; this removes recommended for Style-2 vs Style-1 from D4.0) Moved: Jay Neer Second: Vince Melendy Discussion HJ reasons for original choices RS agree with HJ, plus avoid mis-match with other DB-9 connectors which are already present on products Don Kanasel Call the question on Motion #2 HF notes objection to calling the question, must vote Yes: 30 No: 7 Abstain: 16 Procedural >50%, Passes (to call question) HF discussion is closed. Reads motion aloud. Vote: Motion #2: Delete last sentence of 39.5.1 Yes: 8 No: 30 Abstain: 9 Technical >75%, Fails Clause 1, Comment #19 on "compatibility interface" RS the other exposed interfaces were necessary. My objection is to an overstatement of importance of the GMII. HJ presents side of text Motion #3: to strike "it is highly recommended since" from line 46, page 1.2 Moved: Rich Seifert Second: Tom Dineen Discussion Ariel keep the text Friendly Amendment by Ben Brown & Tom Dineen: insert "for 1000 MB/s systems other than 1000 BASE-X" on line 46, page 1.2 Ariel we should keep the same model RS standard specifies logical interfaces, we keep PT may get disapproval/no votes SM friendly amendment, insert "the TBI is ..." into e) HJ displays new text which was developed during break-out session 4:09 call the question, no objection Vote: Motion #3: Insert/replace/accept text from break-out session Yes: 29 No: 2 Abstain: 24 Technical >75%, Passes 4:09 Clause 36, Comment #107 on "Bit Error Ratio" PT we have specific proposed text Motion #4: move to accept resolution to comment 107 Add objective to 36.1.2: Bit error ratio of 10^-12 replace specified BER with objective BER Moved: Howie Johnson Second: Pat Thayer Discussion: None Vote on Motion #4: Yes: 45 No: 0 Abstain: 14 Technical >75%, Passes Clause 4, Comment #105 on "late collision detect during extend" accept clause editors response Clause 30, Comment #220 on "alnRangeLengthErrors counter" accept clause editors response 4:24 Clause 22, Comment #24 on "Management Frames" Motion #1 from Monday, time 10:11 is now back on the floor Discussion RS lawsuits have occurred over this HF within the context of 802.3u, the transfer consists of: a preamble, register assignment, data or payload. This does constitute a frame. This was the original rational in 802.3u, and has been around a long time with a lot of review. 4:32 Vote on Motion #1 Yes: 33 No: 3 Abstain: 23 Technical >75%, Passes Clause 37, Comment #14 on "remote fault" accept clause editors response 4:33 Clause 37, Comment #2, 34, 50, 51 on "an_sync_status and signal_detect timer" BB (a virtual Rich Taborek) the hysterias we added results in a data integrity hole HF the bit in Auto-Negotiation for restarting AN is available discusses what went on in PCS break-out session BB want the flexibility to close the hole BL displays the text BrB discusses the history of how the signal_detect timer got into the spec. Brad has offered comment #34 as a means of fixing the problem with the wording in D4. Motion #5: Accept commentors suggested remedy for comment #34 (revert to previous text in D3.1 and remove signal_detect timer) Moved: Brad Booth Second: Kevin Daines Discussion PT add text to explain the hole HJ 1 us is too short, OK to add historical note 4:54 Yes: 25 No: 0 Abstain: 29 Technical >75%, Passes 4:54 Clause 38, Comment #87, 100, 291 on "receiver bandwidth" DH None of these comments are closed, they are all MBI group stuff, and the group has a work plan. This includes a revision to the jitter budget, including Table 38-10. 5:10 HF we need a 802.3z vote to endorse the PMD work plan Motion #6: Endorse the statement of direction from the PMD group regarding the jitter budget. Moved: J. Thatcher Second: B. Gregory Discussion JT there are many/other adjustments need to get the revised table out for verification ? put the data up on the web site ASAP TD we need commitment vs statement of direction DH we need confirmation from all involved HF we have a short window what is to go into draft 4.1, old or new? JT the current specification is known to be broken the suggested proposal is not known to be good GOT if known broken, then should not be in draft put new numbers into draft 4.1 then if the new numbers are OK, we are done in March BG add a friendly amendment to Motion #6: "and include DH proposed jitter budget in D4.1, and draw attention to it in the cover letter." Moved: Bob Grow Second: Walt Thirion 5:25 DH there is the issue of churning this every draft WT what does this fix or solve? DH affects MMF, it is a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution a lot of TRs trail along with this Joel if this goes into D4.1, is >75% then required to change the numbers BG the current jitter budget is known to be broken, it is better to go forward with what may be broken EG why put out a draft with no data from manufacturers PT this recirculation is now different from normal procedures however, other clauses are OK and need to be locked down a solution is to remove Table from D4.1 CD (hostile) Amendment to #6 Revise text of Grow/Thirion ammendment to read: "include proposed jitter budget in response to comment #221, which will be included in next recirculation ballot" Moved: Chris Diminico Second: Bruce Levigne HJ we have a "fear of the jitter budget" we need to put the new Table into document D4.1 DH the numbers seen pretty reasonable Jim Tatum do it in document, but with preliminary 5:50 HF the world here is really confused it is 5:50pm, the group needs to really focus TD we need to commit CD the draft is a "working" document, sort of an engineering scratch pad 6:01 Vote on Diminco/Lavigne Amendment to motion #6 Yes: 8 No: 41 Abstain: 7 Technical >75%, Fails HF Must take care of an "order" issue. We have lost the support of the seconder of motion #6 (B. Gregory) as a result of the Grow/Thirion ammendment. Would any one like to offer a suggestion for text that might please Mr. Gregory? amendment to Motion #6 : Add: with an editors note included in Clause 38 above Table 38-10 stating: "To be removed prior to next publication 'These numbers are subject to ongoing review.'" 6:04 Moved: Bob Grow Second: Walt Thirion Accepted as a friendly ammendment by Thatcher/Gregory, and Gregory re-affirms his second for motion #6. HF now back to discussion call the question HF notes objection to calling the question, must vote Yes: 42 No: 5 Abstain: 3 Procedural > 50%, Passes Motion #6 is called HF Reads Motion #6: with first and 2nd amendment as follows: Endorse the statement of direction from the PMD group regarding the jitter budget. Include DH proposed jitter budget in D4.1, and draw attention to it in the cover letter, with an editors note included in Clause 38 above Table 38-10 stating: "To be removed prior to next publication: 'These numbers are subject to ongoing review.'" Vote on Motion#6: Yes: 57 No: 2 Abstain: 1 Technical >75%, Passes 6:17 DH Clause 38, Comments #59, 101, 214 are closed 6:17 HF Clause 38, Comments #15 500/500 fiber is not really part of the installed base and supports his comment with data 6:25 Don Knasel slides on fiber characteristics and their distribution (on WWW) CD this cable is not installed DK 50 micron fiber does need to be in the standard Todd Hudson Presents graphical depiction of Siecor's shipments of 50 um and 62.5 um MMF relative to bandwidth Various comments in support of 400/400 6:40 Motion #7: Accept proposed response to comment #15 Moved: Walt Thirion Second: Larry Miller Vote on Motion #7: Yes: 32 No: 10 Abstain: 8 Technical >75%, Passes 6:58 HF Agenda, page 9 of 11 Review of Differential Mode Delay DH review of comment #62 Discussion Mark the MBI workplan is aggressive HF we may only have work plan result by March plenary we may not have a written standard by the March plenary we may not have a written test procedure by March plenary 7:15 HF what about analysis/simulation of 50 micron fiber (response of) it is in the work plan DH proposes a final recirculation and forward to REVCOM after May interim JT push early, push often (the vendors) DH upload the MBI work plan to the PMD reflector 7:23 GOT for new eye diagram, put in a place holder but really do not want to do this 7:26 HF how (for the group and the standard) to go forward, and be aware of the time-line there is a 3 month delay from Feb. to May for REVCOM meeting produce D4.1 with 275 of the 285 resolved comments NOTE TO ALL: This delays the standard by 3 months 7:39 GOT sponsor ballot resources are limited it is a pain to have stuff in the draft that is known bad lots of comments on: how many drafts, of what type (working group or sponsor ballot), and when 7:56 Motion #8: Produce Draft 4.1, publish to task force membership. Hold off on sponsor ballot recirculation until after March plenary. Cover letter of D4.1 should direct reviewers attention to the changes and unresolved TR comments. Moved: Mike Dudek Second: Rich Seifert lots of discussion both for and against PT motion to divide the question Moved: Pat Thayer Second: Law Divide the Q: Yes: 14 No: 12 Abstain: 11 Procedural >50%, Passes Motion #8A: Produce Draft 4.1, publish to task force membership. Cover letter of D4.1 should direct reviewers attention to the changes and unresolved TR comments. Vote on Motion #8A: Yes: 41 No: 0 Abstain: 2 Technical >75%, Passes Motion #8B: Hold off on sponsor ballot recirculation until after March plenary. Discussion HJ this vote may not matter RS the purpose is to limit the number of sponsor ballots 8:22 Vote on Motion #8B: Yes: 31 No: 3 Abstain: 4 Technical >75%, Passes 8:27 HF Plans for next meeting During 802 plenary week, March 9-13th, 1998 Hyatt Regency. Irvine, CA PMD on Sunday morning starting at 8:30 for about 50 people other groups on Monday morning Interim: Boston area on Thursday, 30 April and Friday 1 May Tentative offer to host from Ben Brown of Cabletron. 8:30 HF Accept Montreal meeting minutes by acclimation and an unanimous vote of thanks to our hosts 8:35 pm HF Meeting adjourned