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

Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SG Phase - Critters and Objectives

John, Steve;

Thanks for this contribution to the forward progress of the Study Group.

I would like to ask that our participants take the time to open the links below and refresh themselves on these points.

In my experience, the tendency for a Study Group to get distracted is not new, and the need to continually remind ourselves of where we are in the process is essential.

I would add that each project has its own unique characteristics and therefore the process provides boundaries but the path will always be slightly different.
Given that we (100G Ethernet) have optical PMDs which already exist and satisfy broad market potential, it changes the relative importance of the 5 criteria responses. We are not just comparing ourselves to prior speeds or other media types, but to 100G PMDs that are currently available. We need to be distinct, economically feasible against those alternatives in order to meet the needs of a broad market, and demonstrate we are technically feasible as well.

Your advice is appreciated and we should all be diligent to remain within the process boundaries and seek a path that brings us to a successful PAR and 5 criteria response. In that regard, focus on the process is essential.

Jonathan and Pete are in the process of setting up a co-joined adhoc meeting that will address objectives and 5C responses for both the MMF and SMF technologies. We hope to provide that focus, and define a path for forward progress.

Best Regards,


On 2/9/12 7:55 AM, Steven B. Carlson wrote:



An excellent reminder about the process, and more importantly--- that it works.






Steven B. Carlson
Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group
High Speed Design, Inc.

Portland, OR




From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:34 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] SG Phase - Critters and Objectives



Yesterday during some consensus calls, I noticed that there appears to be continuing, IMO, misconceptions about what is supposed to be done during the SG phase, which I believe is leading to miscommunications. 

I suggest we take a step back and consider procedures.  Why – because when all else fails, falling back on the procedures will help.


First, let’s remember that we a Study Group.  What is the role of a study group?  Per the IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules -


The normal function of a IEEE 802.3 Study Group (SG) is to draft a complete PAR and five criteria (see 7.2) and to gain approval for them at the WG, LMSC EC, IEEE-SA New Standards Committee (NesCom) and the IEEE Standards Board.


Why do I bring this up?  Because I hear people going right to [relative] cost when discussing broad market potential.  Personally, I think that discussion is diving into the total market issues, and not the function of the study group.  However, per the process, what questions do we need to answer to respond to the BMP critters:


a)      Broad sets of applicability

b)      Multiple vendors and numerous users

c)       Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations)


This does not mean we don’t need to consider technical feasibility or economic feasibility.  There are other critters for that appropriately named.  And let’s remember, we need to apply Boolean Logic to the Critters – we need to AND everything together.  If we can’t answer all of these critters about an objective, then it should not be added.


So as a point of reference, I would suggest that we take a moment for level setting.  The following are links to such presentations for critters and objectives that Hugh and I gave to Howard’s EPOC group at the last meeting.


And before everyone jumps on me about the process talk – let’s remember – it does work!




John D’Ambrosia