RE: [EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
I'm clearly not the brightest person on the list because I'm very confused. Each person likely has one of four opinions
a) AnnexJ good, SHDSL bad
b) SHDSL good, AnnexJ bad
c) AnnexJ good, SHDSL good
d) AnnexJ bad, SHDSL bad
Its a pretty simple binary relationship on two variables. In reality, the variables are independent, as one can like/dislike either technology on its own merits without regard to another technology.
If your position is option (3) in the embedded notes (or option (c) above), then I assume you would vote thumbs up on both technologies if voted independently, correct?
One may feel that in order to provide the broadest applicability, you need to have both technologies (and possibly infinite other DSL variants already invented or to be invented). But each technology be voted independently, and if enough people feel the same way, then multiple technologies will achieve consensus.
I guess my questions to you are
(a) would you vote thumbs up/down on AnnexJ?
(b) would you vote thumbs up/down on SHDSL?
Given your preference for option (3), I have to assume you'd vote 'yes' on each choice, correct?
- Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Behrooz Rezvani [mailto:brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 7:07 PM
> To: Hugh Barrass
> Cc: Jonathan Thatcher; Howard Frazier; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org;
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: [EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in
> Vancouver
>
>
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> I think it is important to take few minutes of our colleagues
> time at .3ah
> to clarify what are the real options, given that there are
> over 1 Billion
> lines of copper out there. I know there is pressure for us
> copper lads to
> move along, but I don't think the issues are very clean like
> it is in other
> areas such as Optics, and by the way they have been able to
> settle down on
> multi-port types for a given objective. If we all feel we
> cannot have enough
> time to discuss important copper issues then one option that has been
> discussed a couple of times before in the .3ah task force is
> whether we need
> to de-couple copper from optics similar to what was done at Ge.
>
> Regarding your comment which is it that I am advocating:
> In my opinion choice 3 is the only realistic way to move
> forward. To see why
> we need to see Barry's presentation which will act as
> catalyst to bring some
> of neutral opinions into A+S option. I am not sure if someone
> who votes for
> A also votes for S and vice-versa. For example it is not in the best
> interest the person who likes ADSL(SHDSL) to vote for
> SHDSL(ADSL). I think
> if option A or option B don't pass the only chance we have is
> to convince
> the enthusiasts on both parts to compromise and let the other one also
> address the Ethernet market thru (A=residential market) or (S=business
> market)... some sort of equilibrium.
>
>
> Best regards
> Behrooz
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugh Barrass" <hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Behrooz Rezvani" <brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Jonathan Thatcher"
> <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Howard
> Frazier" <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>;
> <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
>
>
> > Behrooz,
> >
> > I don't think you understood what Jonathan was saying. I
> think you are
> also
> > forgetting that we, copperheads, are imposing on the Task
> Force to take up
> their
> > time to discuss this issue. Most people in the room will not be
> passionately
> > interested in copper issues and I think we should optimize
> the use of
> their
> > time. What you are suggesting is that we should ask people
> to sit through:
> >
> > 1. Presentation saying "rah, rah, ADSL is great"
> > 2. Presentation saying "rah, rah, SHDSL is great"
> > 3. Presentation saying "rah, rah, ADSL is great, SHDSL is great"
> >
> > It seems obvious that number 3 is redundant.
> >
> > The job of the ADSL presentation is to prove to the Task
> Force that ADSL
> meets
> > all of the criteria and there is need for ADSL as a PHY within EFM.
> >
> > The job of the SHDSL presentation is to prove to the Task
> Force that SHDSL
> meets
> > all of the criteria and there is need for SHDSL as a PHY within EFM.
> >
> > After the presentations, you may vote for ADSL (or not) and
> vote for SHDSL
> (or
> > not). Clearly, the Task Force may approve just one PHY, both PHYs or
> neither
> > PHY. Are you suggesting that we should allow a "vote for neither"
> presentation
> > also?
> >
> > Hugh.
> >
> > Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan, All
> > >
> > > Happy New Year
> > >
> > > I had a chance to look at Barry's presentation and I
> think it has solid
> > > arguments and very clear thinking on merits of having
> both line code as
> a
> > > vehicle to deliver Ethernet in the access network and it
> specifically
> also
> > > addresses some of the questions you suggested.
> > >
> > > I think the issues in the public access network is a
> fairly complex one.
> > > <There are couple of examples to remember. The success of
> wireless LAN
> and
> > > not so successful Wireless Access (MMDS/LMDS type)>
> > >
> > > I think the TF 802.3ah would benefit by hearing that discussion.
> > >
> > > Behrooz
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jonathan Thatcher" <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Behrooz Rezvani" <brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Howard Frazier"
> > > <millardo@dominetsystems.com>; <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>
> > > Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:51 PM
> > > Subject: 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
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > > |
> > > |
> >
>
>