| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, I have updated our May webpage to include the minutes from the meeting, as well as the "agenda with motions". Please check them out, and if you have any comments you can give them to me and Duane.
As for a consensus building phone call, I can offer June 27 (Thursday), at 12:00 New York time (GMT 16:00). Duration of 1 hour, I suppose. I will try to get a conferencing system that works for everybody this time.
Please raise the alarm if that date doesn't work.
The subject of the call is "How to handle our 40km requirement".
As you know, in Salt Lake we agreed to re-use the LR and ER type PMD specifications. This still leaves our 40 km requirement uncovered, because the ER spec only goes to 30 km in a non-engineered link. I am making the representation here that when access network operators ask for 40 km, they mean 40 km over non-engineered links. Reason being that access networks are never engineered (we can't afford the time and expense). So, we need to produce a spec for a PMD that handles more loss than the ER; however, it still needs to deal with only 40 km of fiber dispersion.
Questions: How much budget is enough? 25 dB? Can we extend the ER PMD specs? How? Do we want to introduce the use of better FEC? Can we accept the loss of bandwidth? Or do we super-rate?
I'll stop there. That should get your creative juices flowing.
Sincerely, Frank Effenberger
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGBIDI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGBIDI&A=1 |