Re: [EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
I think if we look at this logically we realize that both sides have real
good and valid argument for satisfying broad market potential. They also
address different types of market.
I hope everybody consider voting both proposals "in".
This will satisfy both residential and business market and helps Ethernet to
propagate into access market in a much better way. It is important to
recognize that access market is really consisted of many valid deployment
scenario all over the world and that are very different from each other. It
is best not to force a single solution to all conditions
Thank you
Behrooz
----- Original Message -----
From: <John.Egan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <MSquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx>;
<hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>; <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: [EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in
Vancouver
> This discussion of A+S (isn't this some sort of store?) might be best
concluded with a quote from Howard's email of 18 December to remind us of
what we have before us:
>
> "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."
>
> We should look at the two proposals separately versus the 5 Criteria and
vote on each one individually. If both get voted in, so be it. However, I do
not believe we will be voting in two PHYs for LR, as we defined only one in
the Objective... and only one meets the market's and Operators' needs & is
appropriate for Ethernet and EFM.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Squire [mailto:MSquire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 4:30 PM
> To: Behrooz Rezvani; Hugh Barrass
> Cc: Jonathan Thatcher; Howard Frazier; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org;
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in
> Vancouver
>
>
>
>
> Alright, so you clearly don't want to talk about your position before the
meeting. That's fine. Given that this isn't a top secret process, I'm not
sure why you want to keep it to yourself, but its your call. Its just one
of many things I can't comprehend (my wife tops the list for the tenth
consecutive year).
>
> On the other hand, you're expressing an opinion that (X+Y) is technically
different proposal than treating X and Y as independent proposals, correct?
More than that, you want to take up meeting time explaining why that is so.
Again, a fair request. But I don't think its unfair for me to ask that we
explore that position on the reflector before the meeting. Certainly
anything worth taking up the limited time we have in meetings is worth a few
email exchanges, no?
>
> By exploring your opinion, i.e. why you will vote the way you do, I wanted
to understand why you see SHDSL+AnnexJ as a distinct option from exploring
SHDSL and AnnexJ independently. If you don't want to convince me and others
of the merits of the proposal using the reflector, why take up time during a
meeting? And if you do want to convince people, then I'll put my original
questions back on the table: what technical justification is there for
grouping the technologies into a single proposal. Or equivalently, what
technical reasons are there for someone to vote for (X+Y) without voting for
X and voting for Y?
>
> I hope this is what the reflector is for - to discuss the merits of
various proposals between meetings. I'd like to see us start talking about
these things now, rather than wait til we have limited time in a meeting
room.
>
> - Matt
>
> >
> > As I said in my e-mail earlier I think it is important to hear Barry's
> > presentation.
> > I know how to rank each proposal technically on their own
> > terms and the
> > market segment they are addressing.
> > From what I have seen I know which one of the two proposals
> > (A or S) gives
> > better results for a given bundle composition and what are majority of
> > binder composition look like.
> >
> > As for your desire to know how I vote, I don't think it is
> > proper to discuss
> > voting before hearing all the conversations on the floor . I
> > do not want to
> > influence anybody's preference one way or another and I do
> > not share this
> > kinds of things publicly until at the meeting. If anybody
> > wants to know how
> > I view things I would be happy to share them privately.
> >
> > This is the last you will hear from me on this e-mail tread
> >
> > Happy new year everybody.
> >
> >
> > -br
> >
>