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

[Howard Frazier <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

According to the (as yet unpublished) minutes, the straw poll results were:

Straw poll to decide which option for burst mode timing parameters is 
preferred by the TF.
As presented in bhatt_general_1_1102_v4.pdf.

Voting for just one option:
Those who like Option A - Specify tight (a la FSAN) timing parameters: 22
Those who like Option B - Specify loose (a la 802.3z) timing parameters: 7
Those who like Option C - Specify tight parameters for ONU-Tx and loose 
parameters for OLT-Rx: 2
Those who like Option D - Don't specify timing parameters: 35

Howard

Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Frank,
>
>I agree with your assessment that the people on the e-mail
>list have a "Option-A" view. However, at the meeting the voting
>pointed differently.  I am trying to remain neutral on this issue
>but someone please back me up on the way the voting went.
>
>Once again, if a compromise is to be reached, efforts should be targeted
>towards making this the 'best' compromise (i.e. achievable accepted values
>which deliver an acceptable efficiency) rather than conflicting
>proposals once again splitting the voting?
>
>Regards
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 17:29
>An: Murphy Thomas (COM FO D O); stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
>Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx; wdiab@xxxxxxxxx; 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
>Betreff: RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
>
>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
>
>