Re: [802.3_EPOC] Review EPoC 5-Criteria

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

Hi Jorge,

I agree we should be fine with the text as we have. It is not what my concern is, though. To go to WG and ask for approval of the project, we do need to have strong evidence of technical and economic feasibly presented to the SG, strong enough to make us believe it is technically (we can do it, there is technology to do so) and economically (it will not cost its weight in gold, we think) feasible. So yes, we can agree on the text but the presentations are still needed.

I am OK starting off with Market Potential. Sounds like a plan to me ;)

Marek

From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 March 2012 14:03
To: Marek Hajduczenia
Cc: EPoC Study Group
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Review EPoC 5-Criteria

Thanks Marek!

I most definitely agree with your comment regarding the Technical Feasibility Criteria, but I thought we should be OK for the others, including Economic Feasibility. I just read through what we have so far once again and don’t see what could be a problem, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Could you let me know what you think might be a problem?

In any case, we'll start with Market Potential this week, and move to the others as we progress through the review.

Thanks!

Jorge

From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:26:07 +0100
To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Review EPoC 5-Criteria

Hi Jorge,

Thank you for starting up this thread. It is most welcome.

I have one comment towards two items of 5 critters i.e. technical and economic feasibility. Before we get into the word-smithing mode, I think it would be most appropriate to see specific contributions to that end, proving points included in the slides. Without them, we will have to revise the slides again in the future, if by any chance the demonstrated technical and economic feasibility is in any way different from what we included in the slides.

For this end, I think it would be best to agree on the simple critters first i.e. distinct identity, compatibility and then move to broad market, tacking technical and economic feasibility last. I would like to encourage contributions to these two last items to be discussed at the meeting and if there are none – at least highlight the outline for such contributions, so that people can start working on them for the meeting.

Looking forward to hearing you all on the call

Marek

From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 March 2012 07:20
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Review EPoC 5-Criteria

EPoC Study Group members,

As discussed during our last meeting the week before last, we will get together over teleconference to continue advancing the agreement on the Objectives and 5-Criteria. Given the status of the agreement on the Objectives, we will have some discussions between MSOs prior to proceeding. So, we will start with discussions on the 5-Criteria.

To that end I will send a meeting invitation for a proposed timeslot for an initial discussion. Hopefully that timeslot works for most people. During this meeting we will begin reviewing the 5-Criteria as we have them following the conclusion of the F2F meeting (attached to this Email). Hopefully through these meetings we can arrive to complete agreement such that we can quickly get the 5-Criteria ratified during our next meeting in Minneapolis. And, during this first call we will discuss the best timeslot for having weekly meetings.

Please let me know of any questions, comments or suggestions.

Thanks!

Jorge