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

Re: [802.3_EPLCA] PAR Scope discussion "PLCA Sublayers"

Thank you Yong. I agree with your complete summary. In the presentation I presented the rationale and the 3 options for clarifying what we meant. Personally, either the option A (which Yong has below) or the option B (including potential new non-MAC sublayers above the PHY) are fine with me - it depends on whether the group foresees anything beyond the PLCA RS, associated primitives, and potentially new primitives to a service access point - then you’d want option B).  I haven’t heard a presentation asking for this, but could envision it.

I  look forward to hearing from other participants.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Yong Kim <yongkim@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 03 October 2026 09:34:02
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-EPLCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-EPLCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPLCA] PAR Scope discussion "PLCA Sublayers"
 
Dear Colleagues,

Thank you George, for presenting and providing this clear summary.  

For those who did not attend the ad hoc and its discussions on this please refer to the presentation link George provided.

being verbose, the following changes to the PAR text will be discussed in November.   Within ad hoc, there was no controversy in making this change (it's not a simple plural to singular).

Original
5.2.b Scope of the project: The scope of the project is to make additions and modifications to the IEEE Std 802.3 PLCA sublayers to enhance the control of PLCA packet transmission scheduling, including management parameters and physical layer service access points.

Proposed.
5.2.b Scope of the project: The scope of the project is to make additions and modifications to the IEEE Std 802.3 Physical Layer Collision Avoidance (PLCA) Reconciliation Sublayer sublayers to enhance the control of PLCA packet transmission scheduling, including management parameters and physical layer service access points.

The proposed text has three changes.
1.  editorial: spell out PLCA.  Even if the first use of PLCA is spelled out on the title of the PAR, it was suggested to spell it out again ("comment magnet"), so just do it.
2.  technical: PLCA sublayer, a singular, limits our work to the PLCA RS layer.  No new PHY.   CFI contents and all technical feasibility presentations before the Oct 1st ad hoc has been limited to changes to RS layer, There is a strong desire to set our scope to this, and the lack of disagreement in the ad hoc supports this desire.  We'll discuss this modification proposal  (remove plural) in November and adopt the resulting view.
3. editorial:  strike "scheduling".  It is true that PLCA assists transmit scheduling in shared medium access.  But it may be cause more confusion with a more commonly used upper layer function.  Removing this potential comment magnet does not change the meaning, "o enhance the control of PLCA packet transmission".   Therefore we will discuss this modification proposal in November and adopt the resulting view.

PLEASE this topic on this reflector, if you have concerns or alternative views.  There is no reason to defer discussion till november plenary.   
Thank you, again George, for bring the above to our attention.

best

Yong.


On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 9:29 AM George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

During today’s ad hoc we discussed the meaning of “PLCA Sublayers” (plural) in the PAR scope.

At the Lisbon interim, the study group approved text for a draft PAR scope as motion #1 using this term.  A presentation highlighted that there is only one sublayer known as “PLCA” in the existing 802.3 standard, and it was unclear what the plural term meant – presenting 3 options (an error – which had been discussed in Lisbon, a meaning for other non-MAC client or control sublayers, or a meaning including PHY sublayers, for example the PCS).  If the meaning were to include layers below the RS (such as the PHY PCS), then the PAR scope should make it clear to those outside of our group that we are considering modifying those within the scope of the project – and not just PLCA.

 

See https://www.ieee802.org/3/EPLCA/public/261001/zimmerman_EPLCA_01_20261001.pdf for details as other suggested, purely editorial, changes to make the PAR scope clear.

 

Because the 1 October meeting was an ad hoc, no consensus decision could be taken, but during discussion, there was general sentiment expressed by some individuals that the project could be accomplished with only modifications to the PLCA reconciliation sublayer.  As a result, some participants suggested changing “PLCA Sublayers” to “Physical Layer Collision Avoidance (PLCA) Reconciliation Sublayer” would be a reasonable solution.

 

The study group will have an opportunity to modify the PAR scope text at the plenary meeting in November (which is normal, at least to make adjustments to respond to comments from other 802 working groups).  Further, it was discussed that changes to the PAR scope such as to clarify this issue should not impact presubmission.

 

In order to build consensus prior to the November meeting, the study group Chair Pro Tem as me to initiate discussion of the issue on the reflector.

Please feel free to respond with your preference for the project scope and explanation so that we can discuss further and hopefully build consensus prior to November.

 

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPLCA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPLCA&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPLCA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPLCA&A=1