All,
Glen raises a good point. During the task
force development of past 802.3 standards the expectation was that the PMD
would be technically and economically feasible by the time the standard was planned
to be published, sufficiently so to enable vendors to launch products into a
receptive market.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Kramer
[mailto:glen.kramer@teknovus.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
January 30, 2007 10:46 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON]
[POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting
Frank, Maurice,
1G EPON was a runaway hit
because it defined something that was ready for immediate deployment, even
though more advanced technologies were available at the time. If you go too
aggressive or too forward-looking, you always risk of specifying something that
won't become available for years and that will become irrelevant when it
finally appears. You don't need to look far for an example.
Consider GPON's class C optics- today, 3 years after the
standard's approval there are still no components available. The point
is, our spec should not preclude product's ability to benefit from future
technology improvements, but it should not make these potential improvements
mandatory in order to achieve the standards-compliance status.
This is just my general
attitude toward PMD spec. Keep in mind that everyone has a different scale for
measures of spec's "aggressiveness" and
"forward-lookingness". You still need to make a specific
proposal for what you consider the most reasonable PMD spec - it could be
that the group would agree with it, making this entire discussion pointless.
Regards,
Glen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail expresses my views as an individual contributor to
the task force, not as task force chair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank
Chang [mailto:ychang@VITESSE.COM]
Sent: Tuesday,
January 30, 2007 6:33 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET]
ad hoc group meeting
I share similar
comment to Maurice, I think we need to address this in some
forward-looking way, at least for some of the link budgets like 29dB. This
doesnot mean we are so aggressive to propose sth impossible
even today. Some optics may look among best-in-class today and we should
allow the technology to grow, so will eventually become commonplace in 3-4 yrs
later. And we have already seen ethernet did great job to drag
both simple and cost-effective implementation in the past.
|
"Hajduczenia, Marek"
<marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com>
01/30/2007 04:26 PM
|
|
To
|
<maurice.reintjes@MINDSPEED.COM>,
<STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
ODP: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting
|
|
Maurice,
what
You're suggesting is thus that we ought to go the same way i.e. set the targets
aggresively and hope for teh best that the manufacturers can come up with the
compliant equipment? 10G is not 1G and we heard some opinions about the
component progress and development, which may result in significant improvement
in the next 2-3 years but still, nobody can say that for sure right ?
Best
wishes
Marek
________________________________
Od:
Maurice Reintjes [mailto:maurice.reintjes@MINDSPEED.COM]
Wysłano:
Wt 1/30/2007 10:29
Do:
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
Temat:
Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting
Glen:
The procedure you outline below is close to how Clause 60 was developed.
What
helped EFM in terms of Link budget was choosing an aggressive target
(one
which was just barely ahead of the present state of the art for low-cost
components)
for
TX power and RX sensitivity, and having the suppliers stretch to meet it.
By
the time the standard was ratified suppliers were ready.
Best
Regards
Maurice
Reintjes
MindspeedTM
Hillsboro, Oregon,USA
Office
Phone (503)-914-5370
Mobile
(503)-701-0797
Glen
Kramer <glen.kramer@teknovus.com>
01/30/2007
01:42 PM
Please
respond to
glen.kramer@teknovus.com
To
STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
cc
Subject
Re:
[8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting
Robert,
This
is a good plan for the call. To clarify item (b) below, as an outcome
of
this ad hoc I would like to see two tables listing receive and transmit
characteristics
for each PMD. As an example, I attached corresponding tables
from
clause 60 (1000BASE-PX20).
I
am thinking of the following iterative process:
1)
Pick Rx and Tx technologies that may get you the required budget
2)
Select a specific set of parameters (as in the attached tables) that
satisfy
the required budget and which the chosen technologies can achieve.
3)
Verify the selected combination of parameters using the Link Model
spreadsheet.
4)
If verification fails, return to step 1) or 2).
Not
all the parameters in the attached tables are used in the spreadsheet,
so
we probably don't need to sweat right now on those parameters that do not
directly
affect power budget (like laser on/off, settling time, or jitter
characteristics).
Those,
who have been through the EFM PMD's pains, please comment on what
worked
and what didn't in selecting the 1G EPON PMDs.
Thanks,
Glen
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@OFSOPTICS.COM]
>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:11 PM
>
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@listserv.ieee.org
>
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group meeting
>
>
As a reminder, there will be two meetings with essentially the same
>
agenda,
>
one Tuesday evening at 7PM EST and the other at 9AM EST Wednesday morning
>
(see below).
>
>
I am revising the agenda for the first meeting, based on feedback on the
>
reflector and some phone conversations. It seems there is a need to
>
better
>
understand the meaning of the numbers in the power budget, prior to
>
driving
>
to solutions for those power budgets. So we will first:
>
a. introduce ourselves on the call
>
b. tell you what I think Glen wants us to accomplish, then see what others
>
think is important
>
c. discuss the interpretation of the 29dB channel insertion loss in
>
context
>
of the EFM power budget and make sure we all agree on what it means.
>
Several
>
emails on the reflector on 1/28 and 1/29 addressed this subject.
>
d. begin looking at specific past proposals for meeting the 29 dB budget,
>
likely to carry over to next meeting.
>
>
I will send out some slides prior to meeting.
>
>
Robert
>
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert) [mailto:rlingle@OFSOPTICS.COM]
>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:48 AM
>
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
Subject: [8023-10GEPON] FW: [8023-10GEPON] [POWER_BUDGET] ad hoc group
>
meeting - CORRECTE D
>
>
>
There was an error in my first email w/r/t to the time of the Wednesday
>
1/31
>
call. It will be held at 9AM to enable European
participation.
>
**************************************************************************
>
**
>
************
>
All,
>
>
I appreciate the expression of interest I received in the Power Budget ad
>
hoc from 10 individuals. I expect more than that to join the calls.
>
>
The first meeting will be held Tuesday, January 30 at 7PM EST, which I
>
believe is
>
Wednesday January 31 at 9AM in Tokyo. This meeting would
likely be
>
attended by anyone in Japan, Korea, or the US West
Coast.
>
>
I will also hold a follow-up call on Wednesday January 31 at 9AM EST
>
for anyone on the East Coast of the US or in Europe who wishes to
>
participate. I believe that will be 2 or 3PM for Europe cities.
>
>
Toll-free in US
866-263-8899
>
Outside US
816-249-6061
>
Conf. Code 7707985015
>
>
I propose that the ad hoc will meet four times between now and March
>
Plenary, with following goals:
>
>
1/30 & 31 - purpose is to review a summary of results and conclusions from
>
previously prepared materials, discuss what seem like most likely
>
solutions
>
for 29dB power budgets, and to generate questions that need answers to
>
turn
>
preliminary conclusions into consensus conclusions based on cost and
>
technical feasibility. I am preparing that presentation to review in
>
consultation with others. Ad hoc participants will be expected to take
>
action items from the first meeting to bring back answers to the questions
>
raised.
>
>
week of 2/12 - purpose is to bring back answers to questions raised in
>
previous meeting and debate their meaning, with goal of focusing down on
>
one
>
PMD proposal one which to analyze further for the 29 dB power budget case.
>
>
week of 2/26 - purpose is to finish up any unanswered questions for 29dB
>
power budget solution, and begin to discuss whether the 29 dB solution can
>
form the basis for reduced cost PMDs for lower power budget cases?
>
>
week of 3/5 - review and revise a presentation for March plenary
>
>
Robert
>
>
Robert Lingle, Jr.
>
Fiber Design and Transmission Research
>
OFS Corporate R&D, Atlanta
>
404-886-3581 (cell)
>
770-798-5015 (office)
|