Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Chano- It's exactly the difference betwen what you would consider "one PHY" and what I would consider to be "one PHY" that is the reason for making the change. From my point of view, we aren't done yet. EPON/EPoC are not symmetrical systems and therefore require two PHYs to build any one system (unlike most of the rest of Ethernet). So we must fix the wording to handle that. THEN We must massage the wording further so that it expresses what we REALLY mean with respect to duplicity, speeds and whether or not we intend to accommodate: - Multiple parallel systems on a single cable plant (presumably via FDM) - Multiple upstream systems (via FDM) on a single downstream system. Many things have been bandied about. We need to come to crisp decisions about many of them and then Write objectives that concisely reflect what we have decided upon but can not be misinterpreted either w/i EPoC or by 802.3. This is always harder than it would seem going in. I know what I mean, and I am sure that you know what you mean, but that isn't good enough in the standards business. Best regards, Geoff Thompson On 85//12 11:05 AM, Gomez Chano (LQNA MED) wrote: Hi,
|