RE: [EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!

["Bob Barrett" <bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gerry et al

If somebody's idea of 'good' gets >>75% is that a problem?

If 'best' gets <75% the there will be no progress.

Personally my feeling is that EPON doesn't belong in dot3. I expressed my
views in an email after the LA interim. I have abstained on all dot3 votes
regarding EPON since then, and I will continue to do so. I can't help
thinking that the EPON group made a rod for it's own back by manacling
itself with the constraints of dot3. The decision to spin security out was a
good one imho.

Good luck with resolution of the last few technical issue ......

btw - the only reason this is a 'reply' to Bruce's email is that his was the
most recent of the thread in my in-box. I did read the whole thread.

Bob Barrett


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bruce
Tolley
Sent: 20 November 2002 17:03
To: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com;
FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
KIM_AJUNG/sait_breakthrough_stars_grp13@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Meir@xxxxxxxx;
wsoto@xxxxxxxxx; eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
francois.fredricx@xxxxxxxxxx; BDeri@xxxxxxxxxxxx; s-rogers@xxxxxx;
maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing
issues!!!



Frank

We can continue the debate in Vancouver but I think different groups have
different views of "the best" and Tom is aiming to get something that is
"good."

Bruce

At 11:29 AM 11/20/2002 -0500, FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Dear Tom,
>
>On the contrary, I, and the majority of recipients of your Email,
>believe that alternative A is the best choice.  I plan to continue
>to support this alternative, and prepare a presentation to this
>effect for the Vancouver meeting.
>
>Regards,
>Frank Effenberger.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:26 AM
>To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com;
>FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>KIM_AJUNG/sait_breakthrough_stars_grp13@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Meir@xxxxxxxx;
>wsoto@xxxxxxxxx; eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>francois.fredricx@xxxxxxxxxx; BDeri@xxxxxxxxxxxx; s-rogers@xxxxxx;
>maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
>
>
>Wilde once said, "The Irish know the cost of everything and the value of
>nothing"
>
>I think for the case at hand, he meant the opposite for me in that I can't
>put an exact cost on
>the various options for the burst-mode TRx's but I do know the value of
>resolving this issue
>and proceeding. This is prio #1 for me now
>
>For those of you not at the last meeting, a brief summary of the timing
>discussions follow:
>
>Summary
>
>The timing question was presented to a joint session of the optics and P2MP
>group.
>Of the four choices, (see
>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/efm/public/nov02/optics/bhatt_general_
1
>_1102.pdf)
>the group narrowed down to a choice between A and D, that is FSAN values -
A
>and leaving the values
>open to implementation - D. In all votes, D had the majority, greater than
>75% among all people present, but
>failing 75% among 802.3 members.  The same choice was presented to the
whole
>802.3 group with the
>majority again in favour of D, but not 75%.
>
>It is my opinion that option D would have achieved a majority but people
>were afraid
>of voting for something with no values. There was also the fear that
>choosing this option would imply
>that certain services would possibly no longer work two 'in-spec'
>transceivers were swapped.
>
>How to Proceed
>
>First off, a lot of people abstained at all votes.  Please inform me if
>there are open technical issues that need
>to be addressed before you say yea/nay. Lets reduce number of A's!!!
>
>Based on the voting of the last meeting, I think the best way to proceed is
>to elaborate on
>option D.  For me this implies the following:
>
>*       Agree on a value that would appear in option D for a maximum start
>up time.
>This value should be agreed upon by a number of PMD vendors and may
>be the sum of Tx and Rx values, or split between the two. This needs to be
>decided.
>*       An agreed value would be also be presented as the resulting
>efficiency of this guardband.
>*       Ensure that the protocol and architecture that he system is future
>proof and that
>transceivers with faster response times can be dropped seamlessly into the
>link.
>In this way, show that all people get what they want at the end of the day.
>
>I thank all of you who contributed for the last presentation. Please keep
>this
>up and lets close on values at the Vancouver meeting
>
>Regards
>
>Tom


Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ H2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
ip phone: 408-526-4534