| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
John,
I agree with what you say; my preference has
been/is to add another objective but there has been reluctance by others to
add another PMD for several reasons including that we will get wrapped around
the distinct identity issue even though we have violated that "critter" in the
past. So we have been trying to exhaust other avenues prior to adding an
objective.
I think my position is clear:
Bottom-line: The only thing that I would oppose is a
100m-only solution; I would support any means to get to an extended reach
solution that we can get consensus on but it is not clear to me what that
is........
Steve From: John DAmbrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:38 AM To: Swanson, Steven E; STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [802.3BA] XR ad hoc Phone Conference Notice 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] |