Dear Colleagues,
Today, in the 802.3cz Interim Meeting we have succeeded in the adoption of 4 baseline proposals (i.e. 50G PCS/PMA,
EEE/LPI, Loopback modes, and BER test mode). However, the most important motion, the one to adopt a PMD failed and
most of the negative voters did not provide any reason for explaining their vote, and what for me is more important, they did
not indicate what should be changed in that PMD baseline proposal to be accepted by them.
Today we voted the only one PMD proposal presented until now that is technically complete, fulfills the 100% of the objectives
and is 100% consistent with the CSD responses. The other PMD proposals (i.e. GIPOF and Si-Photonics) are not technically
complete (at least today), and either do not fulfill none of the objectives or only some of them. I understand that someone can vote
against option “A”, when he/she offers an option “B”, being both A and B complete and consistent with the objectives and CSD.
However, I can't understand a negative vote against option A with nothing to offer (at least today) and with no arguments.
Which part of the motion text and referenced contributions should be changed, with proposed remedy, in order the motion being accepted?
Should the PMD based on OM3 + 980nm VCSEL not be included in 802.3cz draft and the task force should wait until other PMD options are complete and meet (new) objectives? Why (technical reason)?
Should we have also included the other PMD options in the motion, even if they are incomplete and inconsistent with objectives, going against CSD?
Did the motion text or the referenced contribution prevent the adoption of future PMD options like GIPOF and Si-Photonics (provided the objectives and CSD are revised first)?
Therefore, I kindly ask the following individuals to provide arguments for supporting their negative vote against the motion #3
for PMD adoption of today. These arguments may be used to identify gaps in understanding the procedures and building
consensus in the future.
- Tadashi Takahashi, Nitto Denko Corporation
- Kazuya Takayama, Nitto Denko Corporation
- Kenji Yonezawa, AGC
- Hidenari Hirase, AGC
- Yuji Watanabe, AGC
- Satoshi Takahashi, POF Promotion
- Ichiro Ogura, Petra
- Taiji Kondo, MegaChips
- Hideki Isono, Fujitsu Optical Components
- Kenneth Jackson, Sumitomo
Thank you and best regards,
Rubén Pérez-Aranda
KDPOF