Re: spreadsheet for MMF
Vipul,
I did not coined the word "madness". It was used many times in the
past by our Chair, Jonathan, as a humorous word describing the
atmosphere during the last day of the HSSG meetings, after the
technical presentations were over. No one felt hurt. I neither.
I am not interested in entering into an artificial non-technical
discussion.
Jaime
Vipul Bhatt wrote:
> Jaime,
>
> I attended that PMD meeting, and I don't remember any madness. What
> I remember is that a group of sophisticated HSSG members deliberated
> for more than two hours before raising their fingers to take a
> position. They did so with full knowledge that the whole process,
> however easy to criticize, was somewhat informative and therefore
> useful.
>
> Regards,
> Vipul
>
> vipul.bhatt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> (408)548-0813
>
> ==================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jaime
> > Kardontchik
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 11:17 AM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: spreadsheet for MMF
> >
> >
> > Hello 10Giga'ers,
> >
> > I was not able to attend the Dallas meeting. Hence,
> > I was lucky I missed the motion and straw-poll madness
> > of last Thursday.
> >
> > The proposals in the spreadsheet can be cataloged into
> > three categories:
> >
> > 1) proposals that use new high-speed fiber
> > and lasers ("serial at 10/12.5 Gbaud")
> > 2) proposals that use new ribbon fiber
> > 3) proposals that reuse the installed MMF
> >
> > The proposals targetted at the reuse of the installed
> > MMF fiber will enable the successful transition of the
> > existing networks from 1 GbE to 10 GbE. Hence, they
> > complement the proposals in the other categories.
> >
> > For future polls to be meaningful we need first an
> > in-depth technical discussion and comparison of the
> > different proposals. Thursdays' madness is not the adequate
> > framework to do this.
> >
> > A start towards this discussion is a technical spreadsheet.
> > I enclose a short pdf file to begin filling this gap in the
> > third category of proposals (installed MMF).
> >
> > The feasibility/economical viability of some of the
> > architectures is still under an interrogation mark.
> > Some proposals, specially those based on PAM-5 modulation,
> > need more time, but I think that there will be enough
> > time from here till July 2001 (before the LMSC ballot)
> > to answer all the questions and pass or fail the proof
> > of actual prototypes.
> >
> > Jaime
> >
> > Jaime E. Kardontchik
> > Micro Linear
> > San Jose, CA 95131
> > email: kardontchik.jaime@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > ~
> >