[EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
All,
I would also like to commend Howard on a well thought out note and his leadership here.
Behrooz,
I fear that this has the potential to confuse the issue. The key question remains: Do both, one, or neither of the two proposals meet the 5 criteria and satisfy the agreed upon objectives? This question needs our full focus and attention.
jonathan
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Behrooz Rezvani [mailto:brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:35 PM
| To: Howard Frazier; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
| Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
| Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
|
|
|
| Howard,
|
| Very well put.
|
| One note: Assuming fairly equal enthusiasm and charm on both
| sides of this
| discussion, would it be possible for some one (i.e. Barry or
| Nelson) to give
| a short presentation (10 minutes) on the advantages of having
| both solutions
| (option 3). This is because the first 2 presentations (Artman
| and Jackson)
| are focusing on how good individually are on their own in
| their respective
| markets.
|
| Thanks
| Behrooz
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| To: <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>
| Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
| Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:09 AM
| Subject: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
|
|
| >
| > Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Copper Sub Task Force,
| >
| > There has been considerable discussion about the Long Reach Copper
| > presentations that are being planned for the upcoming meeting in
| > Vancouver. I previously announced that we would reserve the
| > entire day on Monday, January 6th for an "all hands" meeting of
| > the 802.3ah EFM Task Force to consider several "big ticket" items
| > that require the attention and involvement of all of the Task Force
| > members. One of these "big ticket" items concerns our long reach
| > copper PHY objective.
| >
| > Clearly, we need to resolve the question of how we are going to meet
| > the long reach objective. Adhering to the motion that we
| passed last July,
| > that limits our consideration to those proposals based on
| the Artman and
| > Jackson presentations (advocating PHYs based on ADSL Annex J and
| > g.shdsl, respectively), the task force has a finite set of choices:
| >
| > 1) Adopt the ADSL Annex J proposal (with appropriate updates)
| > 2) Adopt the g.shdsl proposal (with appropriate updates)
| > 3) Adopt both proposals
| > 4) Adopt neither proposal
| >
| > It is obvious to me that choice # 4 above is the least
| desireable outcome.
| > It is also the default outcome, because the first three
| choices require a
| > positive vote, while # 4 represents the status quo ante.
| > In the hope that the Task Force can reach a >= 75% concensus on
| > one of choices # 1-3, I request that we invest all of our
| efforts in the
| > task of producing EXCELLENT material in support of ADSL Annex J,
| > and EXCELLENT material in support of g.shdsl.
| >
| > Each of these proposals must stand on its own, and must satisfy the
| > 5 Criteria. Each proposal must demonstrate that it has a
| Broad Market
| > Potential, that it is Compatible with 802.3 and 802, that it has a
| > Distinct Identity, that it is Technically Feasible, and that it is
| > Economically Feasible.
| >
| > I have heard some individuals argue (quite eloquently) that
| both proposals
| > must be adopted in order to satisfy the Broad Market
| Potential criterion.
| > In my opinion, this is not the best argument to put forward. Neither
| > 802.3ah
| > nor 802.3 will adopt a proposal that fails to satisfy all of the 5
| > Criteria, and
| > I fear that by saying that both proposals are required to
| satisfy the
| Broad
| > Market Potential criterion, we imply that neither proposal alone is
| > sufficient to
| > satisfy it.
| >
| > May I therefore strongly urge the proponents of each of the
| two proposals
| > to concentrate on putting forward the best possible
| arguments in support
| > of their proposal. If the Task Force concludes that both proposals
| satisfy
| > the 5 Criteria, and that both proposals should be adopted,
| then the Task
| > Force will vote accordingly. I do not intend to entertain
| a "shoot out",
| > "choose one and only one" motion (though I may conduct a
| "beauty contest"
| > type of straw poll, where I ask the Task Force members to
| indicate their
| > favorite). I intend to entertain motions on each of the proposals
| > individually,
| > in the hope that the Task Force casts a >= 75% vote in
| favor of choice
| > 1, 2, or 3, above.
| >
| > One last note about the interpretation of our long reach
| objective: I
| > interpret our long reach objective, as we adopted it last
| July, to permit
| > only ONE PHY for long reach copper. This would seem to eliminate
| > choice # 3 as an option. Based on past history, I don't think
| > that we can successfully argue that choice # 3 really
| represents only
| > one PHY. As I have said before, our Task Force members may not each
| > possess a Ph.D. in digital signal processing, but they can
| all count to
| > two!
| >
| > Therefore, if we adopt choice # 3, I believe that we will
| have a follow on
| > task to justify the choice, and to modify our objective(s)
| accordingly.
| If
| > we adopt choice # 3 on Monday, January 6th, I will assign
| an action item
| > to the Copper Sub Task Force to carry out this task, and we
| will review
| > their work on Thursday, January 9th in general session. We
| will then have
| > to present the change(s) to the 802.3 Working Group when it meets in
| March.
| >
| > Howard Frazier
| > Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|