RE: [EFM-P2P][EFM] PMD considerations
Hugh
I agree with your analysis. What cheesed me off was that the customer told
me (insisted even) that Fast Ethernet SMF PMD was part of the current EFM
project, because a supplier had told them so. I was left in the position of
explaining to them that that particular supplier was being economic with the
truth. Things may change in March I guess. That's the first time we get to
vote on changing the PAR isn't it.
Best regards
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Hugh
Barrass
Sent: 18 December 2001 22:26
To: Bob Barrett
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EFM-P2P][EFM] PMD considerations
Bob,
I won't comment on the merits or otherwise of a 100Mbps p2p objective.
However,
your anecdote raised two important issues:
1. The customer has a solution and "they would like it standardized."
It is not the purpose of IEEE 802.3 to "standardize" peoples' solutions. It
is
our purpose to make the best standards possible where they are required.
Would
the customer be equally happy if we said - yes we will make a standard, but
it
will not match your deployments?
2. If the customer has a solution which they are deploying, what is their
purpose in requesting a standards effort? It seems that they have a supplier
and
a product that meets their needs. If we assume that the 802.3ah task force
keeps
to its schedule then there will be no standard until near the end of 2003.
Will
the customer's deployment be finished by then?
Hugh.
Bob Barrett wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I went to a customer meeting today and had them tell me that 100M SMF was
an
> EFM work in progress. News to me :-). He may not have been correct, but he
> is the customer.
>
> The point being that this customer was deploying 100M SMF and would like
it
> to be standardised. I advised them to at least visit the email archive on
> the reflector, if not join the mailing list.
>