Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone Conference - 05th December




Tom,

I was surprised that options B#2 and C#2 had the same utilization. So I
plugged in the values and got the following results: 

Option A   	90.2%
Option B #1 84.46%
Option B #1 88.32%
Option C #1 87.4%
Option C #1 89.16%

Let's compare our calculations.

---------------------------
Glen Kramer
Teknovus, Inc.
glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Office: (707)665.0400 x115
Mobile: (530)306.5039
---------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf
> Of Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:02 AM
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org;
> wdiab@xxxxxxxxx; btolley@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone
> Conference - 05th December
> 
> Attendees
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Vipul Bhatt
> Piers Dawe
> Dora Van Deen (Sorry Dora, didn't catch your new name)
> Gerry Pasavento
> Glen Kramer
> Manyalibo Matthews
> Lior Khermosh
> Tom Murphy
> 
> 
> 
> Summary
> ------------------------------------
> 
> After playing with the telephone bridge for 15 min we
> finally got together.
> Sorry about
> this, I spoke with Bruce and hopefully next week things
> will be back to
> normal
> 
> There was discussion of timing values and we came up with
> the set of values
> contained in the
> attached table.  Values for option C are clear.  The two
> sets of values for
> B and C represent the
> opinion of the group in terms of what is definitely doable
> and what is
> possible with some more effort.
> NOTE  these values were discussed independent of
> Efficiency etc, just what
> PMD vendor
> thinks can be easily achieved based on current design
> 
> NOTE:  This slide is just for internal discussion and will
> not be presented
> in Vancouver, although it
> may form the basis of a presentation. Calculation
> performed with Glen's
> spreadsheet
> 
> 
> Next Steps
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Tackle the issue of whether parameters are to be
> negotiable or not and the
> wording
> associated with these options. Then, can we narrow down to
> fewer options,
> where are
> the possible compromise points
> 
> Next Meeting
> ----------------------------------
> 
> I need to clarify this with Bruce
> 
> All the best
> 
> Tom
> 
>  <<PMD values II.pdf>>
>