RE: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation: the quandary
Steve and other interested parties,
Starting a reflector for TDM topics can be done via yahoogroups very easily.
If we generate enough interest and support we can come back to IEEE or
another body as appropriate with a technical proposal. I am pretty sure I
can bound the topic regarding a proposal from my perspective.
I am happy to set a yahoo reflector up.
I will talk to Howard regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of using the EFM
reflector to advise of the reflector for out of scope TDM topics. I am
assuming Howard will read this and respond (please). I am also assuming that
it should not be a problem so long as I / we don't make a song and dance
about it. It is a legitimate technical discussion. My understanding is that
most of the APON p2mp systems out there support TDM in some form and that it
would be likely that vendors that have both APON and EPON interests would
want to contribute.
Thanks
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Steve
> Jackson
> Sent: 11 December 2001 18:24
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation: the quandary
>
>
>
> I am very interested in the discussion that is going on regarding this
> topic, and do not want to dissuade further communications. The problem
> space - and all the many ways to 'solve' it - make for a good discussion
> topic. And (commercially) there is most certainly a need, but
> probably not
> for interoperability's sake.
>
> The quandary: Despite the academic interest, I'm also wrestling with how
> this discussion maps into the task at hand. TDM circuits,
> emulated or not,
> seem to be particularly out-of-scope.
>
> One cannot solve a problem until it's been bounded. It behooves us to
> maintain the bounds of the scope we've set.
>
> Maybe the way to break this quandary is to create another (non-IEEE ?)
> reflector for the TDM chat. That way, people can keep up the topical
> exchange, without adding a dilutive, tangential process into what
> is already
> a wide field of view.
>
> Steve
>