Dear Marek,
Thank you for
your quick comments. Here is my response to some of the
points that you’ve made
1. The objective (e) was intended to go
with (g) but since we are considering to remove it then,
we need to provide a cable reach for automotive
environment and industrial environment (as suggested by
Brad)
2. The dB requirement in (g) was
intended to make it independent of the topology which is
not clear at the moment. In principal, I agree that we
should provide the distance goal.
3. (h) is a place holder for now. It
was in the original text “faster than 1000BASE-T” but the
proposed requirement is much faster. I expect to have some
clarification after the wake-up requirement presentation
in July-2012 plenary. Then, this goal will have proper
wording.
4. (i) was discussed yesterday. This is
also a generic objective as the requirement on energy
efficient operation is not clear yet. We need to have a
discussion whether 802.3xx protocol will meet the
requirement for RTPGE or not.
5. There are currently different EMC
requirements for different OEMS. In my humble opinion, we
need to see a unified requirement which, I believe, is
being collected to be presented to the study group.
Therefore, I’d like to keep this under discussion.
Many thanks
for your inputs.
Regards,
-Mehmet
Dear Mehmet
and colleagues,
Even though I
have not been attending the calls (sorry, overlap with
other activities), I have some thoughts on the objectives,
wording and what is still missing. I attach the file with
some embedded comments. Hope that helps
Regards
Marek
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your participation to
yesterday’s Telco. It was very productive with lots of good
discussion.
Please find the attached RTPGE
preliminary objectives with the group’s feedback.
I welcome the inputs and further
discussions on the reflector.
Regards,
-Mehmet