| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear all, Following a couple of comments, I’ve revised the slides slightly to be more clear that those listed as supporters (or detractors) are supporting the conclusions, rather than necessarily 100% agreeing with the specific details in the presentation . Obviously power estimates vary somewhat between companies. I’ve moved the supporters and detractors lists to the end of the presentation and labeled them as ‘supporting the conclusions’ and ‘not supporting the conclusions’ . Best wishes jonathan From: Jonathan King <jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx> Dear all , Ryan and I are seeking supporters and detractors for the attached joint presentation: “Cost, power, size differences of proposed MMF PMDs: 20 m reach un-retimed vs 100 m reach retimed baseline”, which will be submitted for to the May meeting of 802.3bm in Victoria, BC. The slides conclude that “• By about the same time 802.3bm is technically stable (H2 2014) there will be no significant power, cost, or size, advantage to be gained from an un-retimed short reach PMD. – A 20 m reach un-retimed PMD would not meet the criteria for distinct identity. • The 20 m reach objective is met by the 100 m reach PMD, a separate 20 m PMD is not required” If you agree (or disagree) with the presentation and wish to be listed as a supporter (or detractor) of the presentation, please let me know by e-mailing me. Thanks ! Best wishes jonathan |
Attachment:
king_02a_0513_optx.pdf
Description: king_02a_0513_optx.pdf