Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!

Dear Tom,

On the contrary, I, and the majority of recipients of your Email, 
believe that alternative A is the best choice.  I plan to continue 
to support this alternative, and prepare a presentation to this 
effect for the Vancouver meeting.  

Frank Effenberger.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:26 AM
KIM_AJUNG/sait_breakthrough_stars_grp13@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Meir@xxxxxxxx;
wsoto@xxxxxxxxx; eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
francois.fredricx@xxxxxxxxxx; BDeri@xxxxxxxxxxxx; s-rogers@xxxxxx;
Subject: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!

Wilde once said, "The Irish know the cost of everything and the value of

I think for the case at hand, he meant the opposite for me in that I can't
put an exact cost on
the various options for the burst-mode TRx's but I do know the value of
resolving this issue
and proceeding. This is prio #1 for me now

For those of you not at the last meeting, a brief summary of the timing
discussions follow:


The timing question was presented to a joint session of the optics and P2MP
Of the four choices, (see
the group narrowed down to a choice between A and D, that is FSAN values - A
and leaving the values
open to implementation - D. In all votes, D had the majority, greater than
75% among all people present, but
failing 75% among 802.3 members.  The same choice was presented to the whole
802.3 group with the
majority again in favour of D, but not 75%.

It is my opinion that option D would have achieved a majority but people
were afraid
of voting for something with no values. There was also the fear that
choosing this option would imply
that certain services would possibly no longer work two 'in-spec'
transceivers were swapped.

How to Proceed

First off, a lot of people abstained at all votes.  Please inform me if
there are open technical issues that need
to be addressed before you say yea/nay. Lets reduce number of A's!!!

Based on the voting of the last meeting, I think the best way to proceed is
to elaborate on
option D.  For me this implies the following:

*	Agree on a value that would appear in option D for a maximum start
up time.
This value should be agreed upon by a number of PMD vendors and may 
be the sum of Tx and Rx values, or split between the two. This needs to be
*	An agreed value would be also be presented as the resulting
efficiency of this guardband.
*	Ensure that the protocol and architecture that he system is future
proof and that
transceivers with faster response times can be dropped seamlessly into the
In this way, show that all people get what they want at the end of the day.

I thank all of you who contributed for the last presentation. Please keep
up and lets close on values at the Vancouver meeting