RE: [EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
- To: "Bruce Tolley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <FEffenberger@QuantumBridge.com>, <Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com>, <email@example.com>, <Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <FEffenberger@QuantumBridge.com>, <KIM_AJUNGemail@example.com>, <Meir@zonu.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <BDeri@terawave.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing issues!!!
- From: "Bob Barrett" <bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:19:03 -0000
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <188.8.131.52.2.20021120090044.01f2fec8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-To: <bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Gerry et al
If somebody's idea of 'good' gets >>75% is that a problem?
If 'best' gets <75% the there will be no progress.
Personally my feeling is that EPON doesn't belong in dot3. I expressed my
views in an email after the LA interim. I have abstained on all dot3 votes
regarding EPON since then, and I will continue to do so. I can't help
thinking that the EPON group made a rod for it's own back by manacling
itself with the constraints of dot3. The decision to spin security out was a
good one imho.
Good luck with resolution of the last few technical issue ......
btw - the only reason this is a 'reply' to Bruce's email is that his was the
most recent of the thread in my in-box. I did read the whole thread.
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: 20 November 2002 17:03
To: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
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: Re: [EFM] RE: HEADLINE: Oscar Wilde resolves EFM PON timing
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:
>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 start
>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
Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
Gigabit Systems Business Unit
170 West Tasman Drive
MS SJ H2
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
ip phone: 408-526-4534