[EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
- To: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
- From: maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:54:34 -0800
- Cc: BDeri@terawave.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, FEffenberger@QuantumBridge.com, email@example.com, KIM_AJUNGfirstname.lastname@example.org, Meir@zonu.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com, Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Frank: I did an informal poll after the vote failed and found that the
No Votes for D and the undecideds came from the following:
Most want defined values as a start value. (802.3z compliant
module timing, for example, was one mentioned), with
tighter timing in either understood increments or
sets of values.
Some wanted 802.3z compliant modules.
Some still don't know or understand.
Staff Applications Engineer
Office Phone (503)-466-3018
mbridge.com To: Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com, email@example.com, Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org,
11/20/2002 08:29 AM KIM_AJUNG/sait_breakthrough_stars_grp13@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Meir@xxxxxxxx, wsoto@xxxxxxxxx,
eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, raanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, francois.fredricx@xxxxxxxxxx,
BDeri@xxxxxxxxxxxx, s-rogers@xxxxxx, maurice.reintjes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
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.
From: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:26 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; email@example.com;
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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