RE: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call

[Jonathan Thatcher <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

As you are fully aware, any member can bring forward motions, including
amendments. 

The ad-hocs were missioned to work together to bring back amendments to
respective motions presented and tabled at the June meeting. If you
remember, we were at a near stalemate with a similar, albeit different
motion than the one you present below. When said motion is removed from the
table at the July meeting, the chair anticipates immediate amendments to be
requested. 

If you, or anyone else, believes that direction taken by the ad-hocs is not
correct, you have adequate opportunity to bring forward your own solution.
The process is simple and well understood.

I you interpret my suggested process as being one of (from Webster): 1 : a
psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur
usually without hallucinations 2 : a tendency on the part of the individual
or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness
of others -- so be it.

From my perspective, it is simply trying to come up with a process that
gives us the highest probability of success, where success is defined as
passing a complete set of objectives to be included with a PAR.

Reference: for those of you who have not seen the offending recommendation:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/10G_study/public/distance_adhoc/email/m
sg00027.html

jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 9:32 AM
> To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG; HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)
> Subject: Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> My opinion is that you're being far too paranoid at this 
> stage in the game. I
> believe that a motion to:
> 
> "Support the premises cabling plant distances as specified in 
> ISO/IEC 11801"
> 
> The distances supported in ISO/IEC 11801 are:
> 
> 100 m for horizontal cabling (applicable to copper, MMF, SMF)
> 
> 550 m for vertical cabling: (applicable to SMF and possibly MMF)
> 
> 2-3 km for campus cabling: (applicable to SMF)
> 
> These numbers were the basis of the distance objectives for 
> Gigabit Ethernet.
> 
> If a roll call vote is taken and individuals voters know they 
> will be questioned
> on why they would vote NO, I believe the outcome would 
> uninimously in favor of
> the motion.
> 
> This motion represents very positive start to a 10 Gigabit 
> Ethernet standard. We
> then went on to exceed these figures by a large margin in the 
> completed
> standard.
> 
> We all know we can do better than 100 m over MMF and 2-3 km on SMF.
> 
> I'm concerned that your strategy pits proponents of one 
> signaling scheme against
> the other since each signaling scheme combined with a 
> specific laser type,
> wavelegth and fiber type may be the only alternative that can 
> achieve a
> particular distance. Furthermore, that scheme may be far from 
> the most cost
> efficient scheme and may be the most expensive and conficting 
> in nature with one
> of our key PAR 5 Criteria: Economic Feasibility.
> 
> --
> 
> Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> > It is actually a little more complicated than that 
> (intentionally) and you
> > are both right. The goal is to first pass a motion on an 
> objective using
> > some subportion that has a very high probability of 
> success. After that, add
> > more contraversial sub-objectives. Add these in a way that 
> all potential,
> > reasonable opportunities are represented. Start with the 
> ones that are most
> > aggressive. Vote through these options until the group 
> believes the right
> > level of challenge has been acheived.
> >
> > The potential problem is there may be people who think in 
> terms of sour
> > grapes: "I couldn't have my lunatic fringe solution so I 
> will try to spoil
> > the process-at-large."
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter_Wang@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Peter_Wang@xxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 5:03 PM
> > > To: HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)
> > > Cc: 'HSSG Distance Ad Hoc'
> > > Subject: Re: Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan's original proposed process is as you re-iterated,
> > > at least that's how
> > > I understood it.  However, I thought Jonathan actually
> > > described the reverse
> > > process for the short reach distance options this morning,
> > > i.e. start with the
> > > least likely option and move toward the most likely.  It may
> > > facilitate ad hoc
> > > group meeting next Monday evening if we can agree on the
> > > process to over the
> > > reflector?
> > > -Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
> > > 06/28/99 02:14:35
> > > PM
> > >
> > > Sent by:  "HANSON,DEL (HP-SanJose,ex1)" 
> <del_hanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > To:   "'HSSG Distance Ad Hoc'" <stds-802-3-hssg-distance@xxxxxxxx>
> > > cc:    (Peter Wang/HQ/3Com)
> > > Subject:  Distance Ad Hoc Summary from 6-28-99 Conference Call
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > HSSG Distance Ad Hoc
> > >
> > > This is a brief summary of our conference call at 8 AM PST
> > > today (6-28-99)
> > > for those who did not participate. Listed below are the two
> > > levels of issues
> > > we discussed, as distributed previously by Jonathan. We 
> need to frame
> > > motions around these issues which can pass the 7-5-99 Plenary
> > > by >75% vote.
> > > We agreed to implement Jonathan's strategy of making a
> > > sequence of motions;
> > > the top level of which should be eminently passable so that
> > > is a subsequent
> > > item fails, we are not left with nothing.
> > >    As expected, we did not reach unanimous conclusions on any
> > > of the line
> > > items. Based on reflector comments and our discussions 
> today, I would
> > > recommend that in the interim that we each think about a
> > > proposal for a
> > > motion on these issues that has a likelihood of gaining 
> >75% consensus
> > > rather than what might be our particular hot button.
> > >    Jonathan announced that the HSSG Distance Ad Hoc will have
> > > a meeting
> > > running from 8 PM to ? on Monday, 7-5-99, to review and frame
> > > these motions
> > > which we will present at the HSSG Wednesday AM meeting. 
> See you there.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Del
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Top Level Motion/Applications:
> > >
> > > 1. Support the traditional LAN environment.
> > >
> > > 2. Support the extended Ethernet environment as specified by
> > > 1000BASE-LX
> > > link lengths and point-to-point links used in common practice
> > > to reach into
> > > the MAN environment.
> > >
> > > 3. Support direct attachment to the WAN infrastructure.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Second Level Motion/Link Lenfth Cases:
> > >
> > > Possible link length alternatives:
> > >
> > > 1. 100 meters over MMF (850 and 1300)
> > > 2. 300 meters over MMF (850? and 1300?)
> > > 3. 500 (550) meters over MMF (850? and 1300?)
> > > 4. 3 km over SMF (1300)
> > > 5. 5 km over SMF (1300)
> > > 6. 10 km over SMF (1300)
> > > 7. 20-40 km over SMF (1300)
> > > 8. 80-120 km over SMF (1500)
> > >
> > > To sort through these, I think we need to consider some of
> > > the "traditional"
> > > assumptions/arguments/positions that were used in Gigabit
> > > Ethernet when
> > > making decisions about fiber, wavelength, and distance:
> > >
> > > a. We should support the existing infrastructure (meaning the
> > > existing cable
> > > plants)
> > > b. We should minimize the number of PHY choices
> > > c. We should minimize the cost of implementation
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> 
> --
> 
> Best Regards,
> Rich
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr.    Tel: 650 210 8800 x101 or 408 370 9233
> Principal Architect         Fax: 650 940 1898 or 408 374 3645
> Transcendata, Inc.           Email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1029 Corporation Way              http://www.transcendata.com
> Palo Alto, CA 94303-4305    Alt email: rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>