RE: [EFM] Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
- To: "'Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com'" <Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, FEffenberger@QuantumBridge.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, PengL@corning.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Tonyshouse@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: [EFM] Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
- From: Jack Jewell <Jack.Jewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:11:47 -0700
- Cc: Vipul_Bhatt@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: email@example.com
I would have preferred that additional thought and joint effort go into
generating the comparison matrix before broadcasting it to such a large
group. As you say, this discussion is good for the quality of the standard.
I think it only serves a good purpose if it is done in the spirit of
collaboration and presented with the endorsement of people representing both
viewpoints. Are you willing to work with me to review/refine the table and
From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:25 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
bob.barret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; doravv@xxxxxxxxxx;
jradcliffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jstiscia@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.sankey@xxxxxxxxx;
meir@xxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; n.kleiner@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
PengL@xxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
sasaki144@xxxxxxx; schelto.vandoorn@xxxxxxxxx; Tonyshouse@xxxxxxx;
Subject: [EFM] Single wavelength, single fibre PMD for P2P
<< File: Comparison matrix for 1 and 2 wavelength PMDs.xls >> Hello All,
First off I apologise for a blanket bomb approach with sending out this
I have my reasons, as will become clear below.
As most of you will know, I am currently co-ordinating the development
of a single fibre, single wavelength PMD proposal for P2P links.
During a recent discussion of this work, it became clear that a number of
were unaware of what was happening or still unclear of some of the technical
issues involved. Several questions arose
which had already been answered in the course of dedicated telephone
some new issues were also raised.
Of course this discussion is very good for the quality of the standard.
in the interest of progress and completion of a baseline proposal for March,
is essential that people allay any concerns they may have in the interim and
into the meeting feeling ready to make an informed decision.
I would therefore ask people who have an opinion (or concern) in this
to speak up, raise the issues and avoid further surprises in St Louis.
Arising from the aforementioned discussions was the idea that a 2 wavelength
PMD may be an alternative approach. In order to facilitate comparison of the
two ideas, a matrix was proposed which I have included here in a somewhat
form. I divided the table into Today and Future, the former represent
current laser sources (FP and DFB)
and the later assuming the use of VCSELs, be that at 1310, 1490 or 1550 nm.
I dislike the 1-10
approach of comparing as this is too subjective, rather a binary 0 or 1
representing the better solution
for a particular criteria. In some cases there are no differences and both
receive 0. The 'points'
are added and a comparison may be made. NOTE, this will not be the basis of
the decision, rather an aid
to objective comparison. I have included comments behind each issue cells
detailing my evaluation.
So, speak up, play with the table, add issues if necessary, send it back to
get on the telephone conferences.
Best regards and looking forward to further progress.
Tom and the P2P group
<<Comparison matrix for 1 and 2 wavelength PMDs.xls>>