Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
PROPOSED REJECT.
Based on data presented that supported the development of the responses to the Broad
Market Potential and Economic Feasibility Criteria, the Study Group and subsequently the
802.3 WG approved these responses. This data covered the solution that was eventually
adopted by the Task Force and is specified in P802.3bs Draft 2.0.
The SMF objective for 2km was adopted based on data presenting its need across multiple
applications. This need across multiple application areas is noted in the Broad Market
Potential Response in the IEEE P802.3bs CSD (https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/16/ec-
16-0057-00-ACSD-802-3bs.pdf). The commenter notes a specific implementation of
faceplate density (32 ports per 1 RU) as a requirement that must be satisfied. However,
the stated requirement is not supported by reference to an existing presentation or new
data that demonstrates this requirement across the different application areas that have
been noted in the Broad Market Potential Response.
Additionally, the commenter used the noted implementation for determining a power
envelope and cost requirements for the optical solutions, and then continues with
statements regarding "current power estimations." However, the commenter has not
provided any reference to an existing presentation or new data regarding the power
envelope, cost requirements, or "current power estimations" that can be considered.
At a minimum, address the following areas:
a) Broad sets of applicability.
b) Multiple vendors and numerous users.
c) Balanced Costs (LAN versus attached stations)
Among the areas that may be addressed in the cost for performance
analysis are the following:
a) Balanced costs (infrastructure versus attached stations).
b) Known cost factors.
c) Consideration of installation costs.
d) Consideration of operational costs (e.g. energy consumption).
e) Other areas, as appropriate.