IEEE P802.3ae D4.3 comment responses

Ieee P802.3ae Task Force

Description

P802.3ae Draft 4.3 CommentsCl SC P L Cl SC P L00 52 481 12 # 71 00 52.9.10.2 479 42 # 15Thaler, Pat Agilent Technologies Dawe, Piers AgilentComment Type E Comment Status A Comment Type E Comment Status RThis is a resubmission and update of a comment I made on D4.2 which was overlooked. Ambiguous, as discussed on the reflector. Also I thought we had scrubbed this use of "peak" per a comment last time.Why are Figure 53-12 and Figure 52-11 so different when they seem to be showing the SuggestedRemedysame thing? Also, Figure 53-12 seems to accomplish its purpose in black and white while Replace "For this test, these two components are defined by peak values that include all Figure 52-11 is using color. The existing 802.3 is black and white so we shouldn't add the but 0.1% for VECP and all but 1% for jitter of their histograms."expense of color to the printing unless it is necessary for clarity of the standard.with"For this test, VECP is defined by the 99.9th percentile of the histogram of the lower half of Figure 52-3 also uses color.the signal and the 0.1th percentile of the histogram of the upper half of the signal, and jitter SuggestedRemedy is defined by the 1st and 99th percentiles of the jitter histogram."Make Figures 52-11 and 53-12 the same unless there is a reason for the difference. Make Figures 52-3 and 52-11 black and white. Or may get a better alternative from Tom.Response Response Status Response Response StatusC CACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. No ...

Informations

• Publié par: Uffe
• Nombre de lectures: 62
• Langue: English

Extrait

P802.3ae Draft 4.3 Comments Cl 00 SC 52 P 481 L  71 12 # Cl 00 SC 52.9.10.2 P 479 L 42 #  15 Thaler, Pat Agilent Technologies Dawe, Piers Agilent Comment Type E Comment Status A Comment Type E Comment Status R This is a resubmission and update of a comment I made on D4.2 which was overlooked. Ambiguous, as discussed on the reflector. Also I thought we had scrubbed this use of "peak" per a comment last time. Why are Figure 53-12 and Figure 52-11 so different when they seem to be showing the SuggestedRemedy same thing? Also, Figure 53-12 seems to accomplish its purpose in black and white while Figure 52-11 is using color. The existing 802.3 is black and white so we shouldn't add the  Replace "For this test, these two components are defined by peak values that include all expense of color to the printing unless it is necessary for clarity of the standard. b i u t t h  0.1% for VECP and all but 1% for jitter of their histograms." w Figure 52-3 also uses color.  "For this test, VECP is defined by the 99.9th percentile of the histogram of the lower half of e u SuggestedRemedy pper am of thh siotrg efot ehttji  i er, ald an ehtngisflah fo  h pe 99t and 1stt eh dybifen sedraogsthir teit jeht fo selitnecr"m. htp ht1.0 litnecrealgnsie he tnd a Make Figures 52-11 and 53-12 the same unless there is a reason for the difference. Make Figures 52-3 and 52-11 black and white. Or may get a better alternative from Tom. Response Response Status C Response Response Status C ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. No change to the document. A cover letter to the IEEE editor REJECT. This clarification is not needed. will be attached that states: "Figures have been tested in black and white and there is no expectation that the document will be printed in color." 13:0:8 Cl 00 SC 52.9.10.1 P 479 L  12 16 # Cl 00 SC 52.9.10.2 P 479 L  16 47 # Dawe, Piers Agilent Dawe, Piers Agilent Comment Type E Comment Status R Comment Type E Comment Status A Here we should hint at the bandwidth of the filter (around 3.75 to 5 GHz). Giving this Text jumps abruptly into a recipe without enough flags for the reader. guidance would tend to keep implementers away from extreme values of the sinusoidal terms and make for a more consistent test across the industry. SuggestedRemedy Replace "Steps:" with "In steps 1 to 7 below, a suggested method of calibrating a stressed This is part of the expedient alternative to my previous suggestion of using the  eye generator is described in detail." mathematically correct definition of OMA when an interferer is used, which would involve  StatusResponse Response C more visible changes to the draft.  ACCEPT. Edit to be submitt d ggested change to the publication editor. e as a su SuggestedRemedy Add sentence "An electrical bandwidth of 3.5 to 5 GHz may be found appropriate." Cl 00 SC 52.9.6.2 P 474 L  5 25 # Response Response Status C Dawe, Piers Agilent REJECT. This clarification (hint) is not necessary. The text suggests using a filter and Comment Type E Comment Status A specifies a VECP to be achieved.  Number on different line to unit. 11:2 SuggestedRemedy Use nonbreaking space. Also p483 line 21. Response Response Status C ACCEPT. Edit to be submitted as a suggested change to the publication editor.

TYPE: TR/technical required T/technical E/editorial COMMENT STATUS: D/dispatched A/accepted R/rejected SORT ORDER: Clause, Page, Line, Subclause Page 1 of 24 RESPONSE STATUS: O/open W/written C/closed U/unsatisfied Z/withdrawn Cl 00 SC 52.9.6.2

P802.3ae Draft 4.3 Comments Cl 00 SC Table 51-12 P 444 L 6 #  9920 closure of the comment. Geoffrey Garner Lucent Technologies SuggestedRemedy Make the changes to Tables 52-14 and 52-18 already indicated in Comments #99046 and Comment Type TR Comment Status R D4.2 #96  Change10GBASE-LW and EW receiver specs to +/-20ppm.#99048, to change the Comments #99046 and #99048 of D4.1 (formerly comments #11 and #12, respectively, of  622.08 MHz+/-100ppm to 622.08 MHz+/-20ppm in Table 51-12. a D n 4. d 0   ) 1   0 st G at B e A  t S ha E t -  t E h W e   r + e /- c  1 ei 0 v 0 e   r p s p  (i m n     c T lo a c bl k e  t s o   l 5 e 2 ra 1 n 4 c   e a   n c d u   r 5 re 2- nt 1 l 8 y  ,  s r p e e s c p if e i c e t d iv  f e o l r y   ) t   h is e     m 10 or G e B  t A ha S n E  i - s L   W  Resp R o E n J s E e CT. Response Status U - required in relation to the transmitter specification and any possible transport network such as SDH/SONET, OTN, and also old legacy 10 G WDM transponder equipment. Both co is inte l  nt has been ruled as not a new comment. This comment was submitted inc m on m s e is n t t e s n  i t n  w di it c h a   t r e e  t s h p a e t c ,  t  a t s o    t s r u a c n h s ,  p t o h r e t   s e p q e ui c p ifi m c e at n i t o .  n  There i r s n   a n l o y     r i e n a c s o o n n s   i t s o t   e r n e t q  a ui n r d e    t a h ls e o  r   eceiver  a T g hi a s i   n c s o t  m Cl m a e use 52 in D4.0 by the commenter, and the comment was rejected.  The  to have a tolerance of +/- 100 m be  comment was recirculated and the draft has remained approved through the D4.1 and D4.2 offset greater than +/- 20 ppm. p    p The c c o a m us m e e  n nt o s     r s e t c a e t i e v  t e h d a   t s   i t g h n e a  r l  e w c il e l  iv e e v r e   r s   p h e a c v i e fi   c a a  f t r i e o q n  u s e h n o c u y l   d  recirculations.    be  e cha c n a g ti e o d n   . to what is required in line with the transmitter and transport network  Input from other PLL designers is that +/- 100 ppm doesn't impact the cost of the PLL  sp cifi  design. The assumption that +/- 20 ppm would always occur at the receiver is invalid. One The response to these comments was REJECT, with a reference to the comment #93 res on  possible application for increased receive clock tolerance is the mapping and demapping of wou p ld b s e e   ;  a t   h fl i i s p   - r fl e o s p p   o af n t s er e    s m i u m c p h l   y d  i is n c di u c s a s t i e o d n     t t h o  a s t  e t t h  t is h   e is  r   e c c o e n i s v i e st r  e to n l t  e w ra it n h c  c e l   a to u   s + e /- s     1 4 0 6 0 -   5 p 1 p ,  m a . nd  10GBASE-W into a SONET/SDH payload. This response does not address the technical issue raised in the comments. The fact is Historically, Ethernet has been liberal on what they receive and conservative on what they that the +/- 100 ppm receiver tolerance is much more stringent than is needed for the +/- 20 ppm transmit tolerance spec.  transmit. The support for the current tolerances is indicative of support for this philosophy. The suggested remedy in both comments #99046 and #99048, to change the required Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 5 L  38 34 # receiver tolerance to +/- 20 ppm, would result in a less costly receiver design that would work with the transmitter specification. The design would be less costly because the  Booth, Brad Intel receiver clock toleranc - e i   n i   s r   a essentially a spec on the receiver phase-locked loop pull-in  Comment Type E Comment Status A r t a h n a g n  e it ;     n m e a e k d in s  g t   o t   h b e e   . pullnge unnecessarily large results in the design being more costly  Reference publication year. This issue was discussed in the March 26, 2002 serial PMD call. The commenter raised SuggestedRemedy the issue there because the comments were against clause 52, and they were against clause 52 because the relevant tables that contain the receiver clock tolerance (Tables 52-  Published in 2001. 14 and 52-18) are in clause 52. Nonetheless, the members of the serial PMD group on the Response Response Status C t c h a i l s l    s m ai a d tt  t e h r, a   t a  t n h d e     t o hi p s t   ic w s o  g ul r d o   u b p e     d b o e e tt s e   r n  r o a t i   s re e a d l   l a y  s h  a a   v c e o  t m he m   e e n x t p  a er g ti a s i e n   s o t  r “   c t l h a e u   s st e r   o 0 n 0 g ”     o fo p r i   nions on  ACCEPT.   discussion in the larger group. Therefore, the present comment is against “clause 00”. It also was stated in the March 26, 2002 seial PMD call that changing the receiver clock Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 5 L 40 tolerance to +/- 20 ppm would also require changes to clause 51. Examination of clause 51  Booth, Brad Intel d c o o e m s  m in e d n i t c  i a n t d e i  t c h a a t t e   s r   e t c h e a i t v  t e h r  e c   l e o n c tr k  y t  f ol o e r  r 1 a 0 nc G e B  i A s  S al E s - o W  g   i i v n  e T n  a i b n l   e T   a 5 b 1 l - e 1   2 5   1 o - n 1   2 L . i    n T e  h 6 e ,     p p r .  e 4 s 4 e 4 n , t     should  Comment Type E Comment Status A be changed from 622.08 MHz+/-100ppm to 622.08 MHz+/-20ppm.  Title and publication year. i T n h   i C s  o is m  i m n  e a n d ts d   it # io 9 n 9   0 to 4   6 t   h a e n  c d  h # a 9 n 9 g 0 e 4 s 8  t .  o     F C i l n a a u ll s y, e     n 5 o 2 t , e     T th a a b t l   e t s h   e 5   2 o - ri 1 g 4 i   n a al n   d c   o 5 m 2- m 1 e 8  n a t  l t r h e a a t d  g y  a i v n e d   i r c is at e e  t d o     SuggestedRemedy the change to the WAN PHY transmit clock tolerance, comment #661 of D3.0, indicated  IEC 60825-1: 2001, Edition 1.2, Consolidated Edition; Safety of Laser Products - Part 1: that the 622.08 MHz+/-100ppm in what was then Table 51.6 of D3.0 should be changed to  Equipment classification, requirements and user's guide 622.08 MHz+/-20ppm, and that analogous changes should be made to Tables 52-7, 52-9,  StatusResponse Response C s 5 p 2 e -1 c 2 s. ,       5 T 2 h - e 1   4 c , l   a 5 u 2 s -1 e  7 5 ,  1 a  t n a d b   l 5 e 2   - p 1 e 8 rt .  a   i T n h s  e o  c n l l a y  u t s o  e t   h 5 e 2     t t r a a b n l s e m s  i i t  n s c p lu e d c; e     h th o e w  t e r v a e n r s ,  m D it 3   . a 0 n  d d i   d r   e n c o e t i   v h e a   ve  ACCEPT.   a clause analogous to Clause 51.7.2 in D4.2, nor a Table analogous to Table 51-12 in D4.2. The statements in Comment #661 of D3.0 at least indicate that the intent of this comment was to change both the 10GBASE-W transmitter and receiver clock tolerances from +/-100ppm to +/-20ppm. The response to this comment indicates ACCEPT, with the comment re-issued as #44000 and 44001 to permit clause 51 and 52 editors to track

# 39

TYPE: TR/technical required T/technical E/editorial COMMENT STATUS: D/dispatched A/accepted R/rejected SORT ORDER: Clause, Page, Line, Subclause Page 2 of 24 RESPONSE STATUS: O/open W/written C/closed U/unsatisfied Z/withdrawn Cl 01 SC 1.3

P 5 Intel Comment Status A

Response Status C P 6 Intel Comment Status A

L 45

L 13

# 40

# 41

P802.3ae Draft 4.3 Comments Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 6 L  44 39 # Booth, Brad Intel Comment Type E Comment Status A reference SuggestedRemedy ANSI/TIA/EIA-455-203-2001; Launched Power Distribution Measurement Procedure for Graded-Index Multimode Transmitters Response Response Status C ACCEPT. Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 6 L  45 44 # Booth, Brad Intel Comment Type E Comment Status A reference SuggestedRemedy ANSI/TIA/EIA-455-204-2000; Measurement of Bandwidth on Multimode Fiber Response Response Status C ACCEPT. Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 6 L 49 #  46 Booth, Brad Intel Comment Type E Comment Status A reference SuggestedRemedy TIA-492AAAC-2002; Detail Specification for 850-nm Laser-Optimized, 50-um core diameter/125-um cladding diameter class Ia graded-index multimode optical fibers Response Response Status C ACCEPT.

Cl 01 SC 1.3 Booth, Brad Comment Type E publication year SuggestedRemedy published in 2000. Response ACCEPT. Cl 01 SC 1.3 Booth, Brad Comment Type E publication year SuggestedRemedy published in 2000 Response ACCEPT. Cl 01 SC 1.3 Booth, Brad Comment Type E publication year SuggestedRemedy published in 2000 Response ACCEPT. Cl 01 SC 1.3 Booth, Brad Comment Type E reference SuggestedRemedy ANSI/TIA/EIA-455-175A-92; Chromatic Dispersion Measurement of Single-Mode Optical Fibers by the Differential Phase-Shift Method Response Response Status C ACCEPT.

Response Status C P 6 Intel Comment Status A

Response Status C P 6 Intel Comment Status A

L 18

L 33

# 42

# 43

TYPE: TR/technical required T/technical E/editorial COMMENT STATUS: D/dispatched A/accepted R/rejected SORT ORDER: Clause, Page, Line, Subclause RESPONSE STATUS: O/open W/written C/closed U/unsatisfied Z/withdrawn

Page 3 of 24 Cl 01 SC 1.3

P802.3ae Draft 4.3 Comments Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 7 L 1 #  3 Cl 30 SC 30.5.1.1.4 P 63 L 39 #  87 Dawe, Piers Agilent Benjamin Brown AMCC Comment Type E Comment Status A Comment Type E Comment Status A 52.9.4 refers normatively to ANSI/TIA/EIA-526-4A-1997 which is informative reference Misspelling of enumeration [B13] in IEEE Std. 802.3 Annex A, which by the way should say (OFSTP-4A) not (OFSTP- 4). 52.9.7 uses a "should" so maybe that's informative. Note 38.6.3 refers to it in a way SuggestedRemedy that looks normative but calls out the [B13]. 38.6.3 is a variation on what ANSI/TIA/EIA-  Replace "enmeration" with "enumeration" 526-4A says. Response Response Status C SuggestedRemedy ACCEPT. Request that the IEEE Editor make this change prior to publication. Copy the entry presently in Annex A to the list of normative references, 1.3, replacing (OFSTP-4) with (OFSTP-4A). Cl 30B SC 30B.2 P 150 L 52 #  88 Response Response Status C  AMCCBenjamin Brown ACCEPT. Add reference to "ANSI/TIA/EIA-526-4A-1997 (OFSTP-4A), Optical Eye Pattern Comment Type E Comment Status A Measurement Procedure." Extra space after double hyphen Cl 01 SC 1.3 P 7 L  47 1 # SuggestedRemedy Booth, Brad Intel  Replace "-- Clause" with "--Clause" Comment Type E Comment Status A Response Response Status C reference ACCEPT.  Request that the IEEE Editor make this change prior to publication. SuggestedRemedy Cl 31B SC 31B.3.1 P 158 L  58 20 # ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.3-2000; Optical Fiber Cabling Components Standard Booth, Brad Intel Response Response Status C ACCEPT. Comment Type E Comment Status D spelling Cl 30 SC 30.5.1.1.4 P 63 L  1 39 # SuggestedRemedy Dawe, Piers Agilent  change zeroes to zeros Comment Type E Comment Status A Response enmeration SuggestedRemedy enumeration Response Response Status C ACCEPT. See response to comment #87.

Response Status Z

TYPE: TR/technical required T/technical E/editorial COMMENT STATUS: D/dispatched A/accepted R/rejected SORT ORDER: Clause, Page, Line, Subclause RESPONSE STATUS: O/open W/written C/closed U/unsatisfied Z/withdrawn

Page 4 of 24 Cl 31B SC 31B.3.1

P802.3ae Draft 4.3 Comments Cl 44A SC 44A.4 P 177 L  56 22 # Cl 45 SC 45.2.3.16 P 226 L 1 #  2 Booth, Brad Intel Dawe, Piers Agilent Comment Type E Comment Status A Comment Type E Comment Status D Output of upper most AND gate is the logical inverse of Local Fault. Draft says "The test pattern error counter ... contains the number of errors received .... SuggestedRemedy rre tib eped sro ecklo bors orrred(  tom 942. es et onnden tes the  21.syashW" a ne2).1  ."t Bu.249rrroo ccru,si  tn isolated bit eehP est c uaiwll1 RBS3 t eitherill counuotnrew hTsic  Change AND gate to be a NAND gate. This is an editorical comment because the annex is  pattern error signal to go high three times... The test pattern error counter shall increment informative, not normative.  once for each bit time that the PRBS31 pattern error signal is high. Response Response Status IEE C  rE Editor make this change pri  We this is a system level spec. Remember  to  try to deal with signals that are observable at ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE. Request that the o  the ports. In this case, a user might force a single error on the line and be puzzled to see a publication. count  of 3. Clause 45 is misleading, because the counter does not report received bit This is a result of an incomplete change agreed to in an earlier draft. This m kes the  errors, but an internally generated signal, around three times as many counts as received a errors.  You can't call the output of the checker "bit errors" or "received" without figure match the normative text.  qualification because that is what is at the input of the checker; the signal coming out of the checker is not an error or in error, but deliberately created, even if it has similar Cl 45 SC 45.2.2.8 P 202 L  59 35 # characteristics to a receive side signal after descrambling. It has to have a different name. Booth, Brad Intel Comment Type E Comment Status A write MDIO software and report received errors,It would be a disservice to anyone trying to elling without taking time out to understand the detail of the other clauses, not to tell him that he sp may  need to divide the counter value by 3 to get a good estimate of received errors. Sugg c e h s a t n e g d e R z e e med   y t 45.2.3.12.2 has the same problem. It says "The number of errors received during a roes o zeros  PRBS31 pattern test are recorded in register 3.43." If you forced a single error on the line (one error received) the register would count 3. also on page 223, line 4 and 10; page 226, line 5 Response Res e Status C SuggestedRemedy pons with "multiplied bit errors at the bit error checker output".In 45.2.3.16, replace "bit errors" ACCEPT. Request that the IEEE Editor make this change prior to publication.  Add another sentence "In the latter case, a good estimate of received bit errors may be made by dividing the counter's contents by 3." In 45.2.3.12.2, replace "number of errors received" with "number of multiplied bit errors at the bit error checker output". Response Response Status Z Withdrawn. Cl 45 SC Table 45-11 P 195 L 40 #  57 Booth, Brad Intel Comment Type E Comment Status A extra space SuggestedRemedy appears to be an extra space between J1 and transmit, and on line 54 between J0 and transmit Response Response Status C ACCEPT. Request that the IEEE Editor make this change prior to publication.

TYPE: TR/technical required T/technical E/editorial COMMENT STATUS: D/dispatched A/accepted R/rejected SORT ORDER: Clause, Page, Line, Subclause Page 5 of 24 RESPONSE STATUS: O/open W/written C/closed U/unsatisfied Z/withdrawn Cl 45 SC Table 45-1