Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
All,
In response to Dan's request for clarification from me - it is simple - this discussion is to cease.
While these emails are referencing information that is publicly available the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy states <http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/antitrust.pdf> that 'There is no useful or appropriate reason to discuss selling prices of implementations'.
If a discussion of current and past end user cost of products were to continue there is the risk that it could stray into a discussion of the future end user costs of the proposed standard. This risk with this is addressed in answer to the question 'So is it okay to talk about prices or output levels in an IEEE-SA meeting as long as we don't reach an agreement?' in the policy.
The answer states 'No, it's not okay. First, you can't always control where the discussion will go - it may end up in undesired areas. Second, if agreeing on the subject would be unlawful (such as the respective selling prices of compliant products), then that subject should not be discussed. And third, it's not up to you to decide whether your words and conduct amount to an agreement - in the U.S., that decision gets made by a judge using the peculiar rules of evidence that only courts use and by a jury that is unlikely to know anything about your industry or business. The whole question about your actions will come up after the fact, and with the sure vision of hindsight, any questionable discussion or debate could be seen to have led to a tacit if not an explicit agreement that is prohibited by law. Please do not put the IEEE, your company, your colleagues in the standards community, or yourself at risk by discussing these topics.'.
Best regards,
David
________________________________________
From: Daniel Dove [mailto:ddove@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 February 2012 23:31
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
All,
I am going to request clarification from David Law, but I am not comfortable with discussion on this topic.
I am going to keep repeating this as long as necessary.
Take a moment to review the following document - http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/antitrust.pdf
Please, read it and follow it.
Dan
On 2/3/12 3:21 PM, Scott Kipp wrote:
Ali,
While the 3X the cost for 10X the bandwidth has been a goal, it hasn't been achieved yet for 10GbE. According to Dell'Oro, 10GbE switch ports were about 12X the cost of GbE switch ports in 2011. If you are only talking about the module costs, then 10GBASE-SR is closer to your goal at 4.8X 1000BASE-SX in 2011 according to Lightcounting.
I don't think we should make the same false cost requirement for 100GbE since 100GbE is still in a low volume state. 10GBASE-SR is about 7.5X 100GBASE-SR10 according to Lightcounting in 2011.
Kind regards,
Scott
From: Ali Ghiasi [mailto:aghiasi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:33 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] Minutes Uploaded - Forward Direction
Dan
We can go with 100GBase-SR10 cost if its cost has reach traditional Ethernet cost which is 10x BW 3X the cost.
Otherwise it would be better to go back to the basic 100G-SR4 should be 3x the cost of 10GBase-SR
and the new SMF PMD should be 3x the cost of 10Gbase-LR.
I expect both 100Gbase-SR10 and 100Gbase-LR4 would fail above criteria!
Thanks,
Ali
On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Daniel Dove wrote:
Participants,
I should mention that my suggestion below to use 100GBASE-SR10 for relative cost is not mandatory. It was a suggestion and should be considered as one possible approach to relative cost assessment for SR4.
For an SMF objective, the ad hoc should decide what it wishes to use for relative cost assessment if anything.
In theory, having a common point for relative cost assessment is not required. Each presenter can provide their best judgment, explain how they came to it, and let the group determine whether they are accurate. This approach is also acceptable.
Regards,
Dan Dove
On 2/2/12 2:43 PM, Daniel Dove wrote:
Dear Study Group Participants,
The draft minutes have been uploaded to our website at http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GNGOPTX/public/index.html. Please take a moment to review and feedback any items to Kapil Shrikhande our vice-chair.
For those who attended the Study Group meeting in Newport Beach, you are aware that we ended without a wrap-up due to a call for adjournment, second and lacking opposition, we adjourned. At the time, I felt it would be better to gather our thoughts and focus on how to move forward.
For those who did not attend, we were able to secure another objective, "Define re-timed 4-lane 100G PMA to PMA electrical interfaces for chip to chip and chip to module applications". In addition, we saw many presentations related to study for MMF and SMF objectives.
We ran a few straw-polls and essentially the outcome was that we have additional work to come to consensus on either a SMF or MMF objective. In addition, guidance was provided through the straw-polling, but it may not have been specific to making progress as a team. Rather, it was oriented towards the type of material we would like to see. So, below I will address a proposal for making forward progress using the information gleaned from our meeting.
Adhocs:
Multi-Mode ad hoc led by Jonathan King.
Single-Mode ad hoc led by Pete Anslow.
These two groups will solicit participation and meet via teleconference to:
1. Identify a straw-man objective that can gain consensus
2. Identify specific media/reach, market potential related to that reach based on relative cost to SR10, technical feasibility
3. Identify presentation material that they believe will convince the SG their objective is valid.
We need to avoid getting into "baseline proposal mode" where we see our preferred alternative competing with the other alternatives. The goal of SG presentations should not be not to sell a proposal. They should be focused on demonstrating an objective meets the 5 criteria with multiple approaches.
If these two groups can pull together a compelling set of objectives, and presentations that demonstrate they meet the 5 criteria, we can then come together in March and work to identify any remaining consensus opportunities that can be worked on for the upcoming May meeting.
Presuming we can finalize our objectives, 5 criteria responses, and get our PAR completed in May, we will be ready to pre-submit and move toward a July PAR submittal.
Best Regards,
Dan Dove
Chair, IEEE 802.3 Next Generation Optical Ethernet Study Group