RE: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone Conference - 05th December
Tom,
Maybe its me, but the numbers in the table don't feel right.
For example how did the numbers for Option B set 2 be worse than Option
C? And how did Option C set 2 be worse than set 1?
Am I missing something?
From what we heard so far, the service requirement for uplink delay is
1.5ms and not 1ms.
I think calculations should be calibrated to the 1ms point to reflect
this.
Ariel
> -----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 09:02
> 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>>
>
>
>