| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve, Your comment below could be interpreted that
something has stopped the group from making a motion regarding a new objective for
MMF. I do not recall any motion (or straw poll) regarding adding a 2nd
MMF objective ever being made. This is different than the SMF scenario
described below, where separate motions for each of the distances were made. (>
10km over SMF adopted Motion #5 11/06 plenary meeting and > 40km over
SMF adopted Motion #5 at 1/07 interim meeting). Furthermore, I gave a presentation to the
XR over Parallel Fiber Ad hoc (http://www.ieee802.org/3/ba/public/AdHoc/MMF-Reach/dambrosia_xr_01_0508.pdf)
where the topic was discussed as well in relation to distinct identity. I
also addressed this issue in an email to Paul Kolesar (http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/email/msg01162.html),
and observed that I saw three general routes that the ad hoc might choose in
forming a proposal: 1) handle extended reach in some sort of informative manner 2) modify the existing solution in some manner 3) propose a new objective that enables a second solution To date I have still not heard anyone
propose adding a new objective. If such a course were to be pursued, it
would be advisable to do at the coming plenary meeting, so that the added
objective could be confirmed by the WG. John From: Swanson, Steven
E [mailto:SwansonSE@xxxxxxxxxxx] Brad, Just to be crystal clear, the objective
reads: "at least 100m on OM3 MMF" While I agree that 100m meets that objective, Kolesar and I
presented data in November 2006 noting that 100m was not adequate. We were
assured that longer link lengths could be accommodated because of the words
"at least." This was my beef in In a survey of our customers 0/20 said that 100m was adequate
and that MMF was preferred over SMF where possible. I still don't understand why it is OK to have two link length
objectives for SMF (and we considered a third (2-4km)) but we can't have two
link length objectives for MMF. Better yet from my point of view is to have one
PMD that satisfies both - the premium that we are talking about at the module
level (estimated at ~20%) is in the noise for 40/100. We need a compromise here of some sorts. Steve From: Brad
Booth [mailto:bbooth@xxxxxxxx] That's an excellent point. I'm glad
that Jeff brought this up. The objectives state 100m on OM3.
That is the requirement of the project and one by which the draft standard will
be judged. There is no requirement to satisfy a non-objective. Thanks, Brad Brad
Booth From: Petar
Pepeljugoski [mailto:petarp@xxxxxxxxxx]
From: Jeff Maki
[mailto:jmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx] |