| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Thank you Victor, The Study Group took your comments into consideration and I believe modified the text in PAR to address the issue you raised. Regards Marek From: Victor Blake [mailto:victorblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Marek, et. al. I’m sorry that I’m not there to participate in person. One comment on PAR Item 5.5, Project Need. “The project is applicable to subscriber access, back-haul, and multi-dwelling unit environments, extending the market coverage of Ethernet Passive Optical Networks into longer reach and higher density applications. The project is needed to enable telecommunications operators and multiple system operators to provide advanced bandwidth-intensive services, such as high-definition television, while: reducing footprint and power consumption of central office equipment; minimizing service upgrade cost; and minimizing fiber deployment costs, while increasing customer density per central office, enhancing coverage area and further decreasing the cost per subscriber, allowing also for central office consolidation to minimize CAPEX and OPEX. “ I don’t see how extended reach or higher split ratio have anything in particular to do with specific applications like “high-definition television.” At best it is marketing to call it related. I think it should be sufficient to say that: “The project is needed to enable operators to utilize EPON FTTx at longer reach or higher split ratios or both, for more cost effective scaling while: reducing….” The fact is that without regard to a particular IP service, this is needed for even non-IP services like MEF services, etc. -Victor From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx] Dear colleagues, Attached please find the document for discussion today in the morning. We have not yet looked at the PAR document, but I think it should be a straightforward task, perhaps with some word-smithing to address any concerns about the language in which the scope, goal etc. for the future project is written. The document with 5 Critters contains Distinct Identity, Technical Feasibility and Compatibility criteria. The Technical Feasibility criterion contains some extra text which was added under Action Item Alan and I took yesterday – it is marked in red and subject to discussion and approval of the SG today. We will also, I hope, see the updated version of the Market criterion from Ed and go through the economic feasibility from David Piehler (if absent, I will run the material on his behalf). The goal for today is to complete work on these documents and prepare them for presentation at the closing plenary in the afternoon with the appropriate motions from SG to seek their approval at the 802.3WG and EC levels and then seek creation of a Task Force. Also, just a reminder. Today we start at 8:30 am in the Courtland room, as discussed yesterday. Regards Marek Hajduczenia |