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

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


We can continue the debate in Vancouver but I think different groups have 
different views of "the best" and Tom is aiming to get something that is 


At 11:29 AM 11/20/2002 -0500, FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>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

Bruce Tolley
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
internet: btolley@xxxxxxxxx
ip phone: 408-526-4534