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

[Jonathan Thatcher <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> 
>