Re: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation: the quandary
I would have a hard time arguing that TDM circuit emulation is
within the scope of our approved project. As always, I strongly
encourage the group to concentrate on solving the problems that
are within our scope. If we do not, we will likely never finish
Bob Barrett wrote:
> Steve and other interested parties,
> Starting a reflector for TDM topics can be done via yahoogroups very easily.
> If we generate enough interest and support we can come back to IEEE or
> another body as appropriate with a technical proposal. I am pretty sure I
> can bound the topic regarding a proposal from my perspective.
> I am happy to set a yahoo reflector up.
> I will talk to Howard regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of using the EFM
> reflector to advise of the reflector for out of scope TDM topics. I am
> assuming Howard will read this and respond (please). I am also assuming that
> it should not be a problem so long as I / we don't make a song and dance
> about it. It is a legitimate technical discussion. My understanding is that
> most of the APON p2mp systems out there support TDM in some form and that it
> would be likely that vendors that have both APON and EPON interests would
> want to contribute.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Steve
> > Jackson
> > Sent: 11 December 2001 18:24
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: [EFM] TDM circuit emulation: the quandary
> > I am very interested in the discussion that is going on regarding this
> > topic, and do not want to dissuade further communications. The problem
> > space - and all the many ways to 'solve' it - make for a good discussion
> > topic. And (commercially) there is most certainly a need, but
> > probably not
> > for interoperability's sake.
> > The quandary: Despite the academic interest, I'm also wrestling with how
> > this discussion maps into the task at hand. TDM circuits,
> > emulated or not,
> > seem to be particularly out-of-scope.
> > One cannot solve a problem until it's been bounded. It behooves us to
> > maintain the bounds of the scope we've set.
> > Maybe the way to break this quandary is to create another (non-IEEE ?)
> > reflector for the TDM chat. That way, people can keep up the topical
> > exchange, without adding a dilutive, tangential process into what
> > is already
> > a wide field of view.
> > Steve