Re: [802.3_EXTND_EPON] Website update
Dear Susumu,
By the time I was preparing the agenda, I did not have contribution from Tajima-san. I received it only after the email was sent to the reflector. His contribution will be on the working agenda for Thursday meeting, though given that it is not related directly with the project objectives, I will give priority to contributions addressing project objectives.
I will fix my contribution - I must have uploaded the version without page 5 fixed. Thank you for catching that
Regarding the move of PX30 parameters from Clause 75. Note that we will be adding PX30 downstream parameters into Clause 60, and then PX40 upstream and downstream parameters into Clause 60 as well. If we do not move parameters for PX30 upstream from Clause 75, we will have a weird situation in which all parameters for 1G-EPON PMDs, except for one, is included in Clause 60. Technically, there is little difference, but it makes more sense to have complete PMD parameter set in a single clause, rather than having to jump between two clauses.
As for the contribution li_1.pdf, I understand that your concern is the 1000BASE-PX30-U parameter set. I agree with you that we do not need two parameter sets and it is my fault for not having noted it before. The respective column in Table 4 should point to 10/1GBASE–PRX–U3 definition in Table 75-9. I will speak to Dr. Li to have this contribution updated and resubmitted as post-deadline material. I hope this would address the concern you're raising.
Regards
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Susumu Nishihara [mailto:nishihara.susumu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 11 May 2012 13:15
To: STDS-802-3-EXTND-EPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EXTND_EPON] Website update
Dear Marek,
I read over some contributions. First, Tajima-san's presentation seems missing in the current agenda. Second, on page5, in your contribution, "Clause 70 + annexes" should be "Clause 75 + annexes".
Third, I am not sure if I agree to your proposal to move so-called "PX-30" description to Clause 60 because it is already specified as "PRX30" in Clause75 even if it contains description on 1G. Let's discuss it in Minneapolis.
For the similar reason, I would like to object to the description on PX30-U (transmit) and PX30-D (receive) in contribution "8023bk_1205_li_1.pdf". I do not think we need two physical specifications in IEEE802.3 to meet one requirement for 29-dB loss budget system, even though the differences are small in their values.
Also, my another concern would be that such double-standard specifications would confuse the market.
Best regards,
Susumu
(2012/05/11 18:25), Marek Hajduczenia wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The website for May interim meeting has been updated. You can find it
> at: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bk/public/1205/index.html
>
> We have received three technical contributions (so far) for which I
> have allocated time at the beginning of the meeting. The proposed
> meeting agenda is shown below.
>
> At this time, we do not have enough items on agenda to have a meeting
> on Friday, unless there is a lot of technical discussion on individual
> proposals.
>
> I wish you all safe travels to Minneapolis and see you next week
>
> *Marek Hajduczenia, PhD*
>
> acting Extended EPON Task Force Chair, http://www.ieee802.org/3/bk
> **
> ZTE Portugal
> Edifício Amoreiras Plaza,
> Rua Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto, nr. 9 - 6 A,
> 1070-374 Lisbon, Portugal
> //
> /Office: +351 213 700 090
> Fax: + 351 213 813 349
> Mobile: +351 961 121 851 (Portugal)/
>
--
Susumu Nishihara
NTT Access Network Service Systems Laboratories, NTT Corporation 1-1, Hikarinooka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 239-0847 Japan
Phone: +81 46 859 2124
Facsimile: +81 46 859 5513
E-mail: nishihara.susumu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx