Re: [802SEC] Response to comments on IEEE P802.3ch draft PAR and CSD

[James Gilb <000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@ieee.org>]

Dear David

The statement "IEEE 802.3 does not state reach(s) in their PARs." is not 
an appropriate or respectful response.  What was done in the past is not 
relevant to this PAR.

The fact is that it is not possible for the EC (or the 802.3 WG, for 
that matter) to evaluate the requirements of Technical Feasibility and 
Economic Feasibility without mentioning the distance over which the 
proposed link is to operate.

It is not as if I am asking for information that is unknown to the 
group.  They have been discussing reach and it is apparently in some 
other document, the objectives.

However, the PAR and CSD are documents in which this information is to 
appear and it does not appear there.

While the term "automotive" does bound the problem somewhat, it is not 
sufficient.

I am therefore opposed to this PAR unless it includes a statement 
regarding reach.  I would accept the following.  "The typical link 
distance supported by this standard is at least 15 m in some modes of 
operation."

James Gilb

On 03/15/2017 03:59 PM, Law, David wrote:
> Dear EC members,
>
> Please see below the comments and responses in respect to the IEEE P802.3ch draft PAR and CSD. The updated PAR and CSD can be accessed as follows, files showing the changes made to the PAR and CSD are attached for your reference.
>
> Best regards,
>   David
>
> Updated IEEE P802.3ch draft PAR: <https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/17/ec-17-0008-03-00EC-ieee-p802-3ch-draft-par.pdf>
> Updated IEEE P802.3ch draft CSD: <https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/17/ec-17-0009-01-00EC-ieee-p802-3ch-draft-csd.pdf>
>
> ----
>
> Section 2.1 - Change 'Automotive' to 'Vehicular' or to be consistent, change all the 'vehicular' to 'automotive' in the PAR.
>
> ACCEPTED: All instances of 'vehicular' changed to 'automotive' in the PAR and CSD
>
> -----
>
> Section 5.5 - Typo "G/bps" should be "Gb/s"
>
> ACCEPTED
>
> -----
>
> Section 5.5 - Suggest changing "legacy networks" to "legacy vehicular networks"
>
> ACCEPTED: Changed to "legacy automotive networks"
>
> -----
>
> CSD Broad Market Potential - First dashed item was initially confusing to naïve readers, may consider adding ''' or ','
>
> ACCEPTED: Changed 'Higher than current Ethernet rates in the automotive market...' to 'Higher than current automotive Ethernet rates will enable replacement of multiple proprietary protocols operating at rates greater than 1 Gb/s with Ethernet, furthering consolidation of legacy in-car networks in a homogeneous architecture.'.
>
> -----
>
> PAR: The typical reach is not specified. While for an automobile, 15 m may be appropriate, for a tandem or triple trailer truck, 50 m may be appropriate. I think the scope should list the target connection length for the proposed work. The CSD requirements that this a project is technically feasible and cost effective cannot be evaluated without knowing the target distance.
>
> For example, the scope could say 'supporting link distances of at least 15 m' or 'supporting link distances of approximately 50 m'.
>
> REJECTED: IEEE 802.3 does not state reach(s) in their PARs. After discussion, the IEEE 802.3 Multi-Gig Automotive Ethernet PHY Study Group rejected the proposed change.
>
> With the changes above from 'vehicular' to 'automotive' the reach is sufficiently described.
>
> -----
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.