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

[EFM] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver

Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Copper Sub Task Force,

There has been considerable discussion about the Long Reach Copper
presentations that are being planned for the upcoming meeting in
Vancouver.  I previously announced that we would reserve the
entire day on Monday, January 6th for an "all hands" meeting of
the 802.3ah EFM Task Force to consider several "big ticket" items
that require the attention and involvement of all of the Task Force
members.  One of these "big ticket" items concerns our long reach
copper PHY objective.

Clearly, we need to resolve the question of how we are going to meet
the long reach objective. Adhering to the motion that we passed last July,
that limits our consideration to those proposals based on the Artman and
Jackson presentations (advocating PHYs based on ADSL Annex J and
g.shdsl, respectively), the task force has a finite set of choices:

1) Adopt the ADSL Annex J proposal (with appropriate updates)
2) Adopt the g.shdsl proposal (with appropriate updates)
3) Adopt both proposals
4) Adopt neither proposal

It is obvious to me that choice # 4 above is the least desireable outcome.
It is also the default outcome, because the first three choices require a
positive vote, while # 4 represents the status quo ante.
In the hope that the Task Force can reach a >= 75% concensus on
one of choices # 1-3, I request that we invest all of our efforts in the
task of producing EXCELLENT material in support of ADSL Annex J,
and EXCELLENT material in support of g.shdsl.

Each of these proposals must stand on its own, and must satisfy the
5 Criteria. Each proposal must demonstrate that it has a Broad Market
Potential, that it is Compatible with 802.3 and 802, that it has a
Distinct Identity, that it is Technically Feasible, and that it is
Economically Feasible.

I have heard some individuals argue (quite eloquently) that both proposals
must be adopted in order to satisfy the Broad Market Potential criterion.
In my opinion, this is not the best argument to put forward. Neither 
nor 802.3 will adopt a proposal that fails to satisfy all of the 5 
Criteria, and
I fear that by saying that both proposals are required to satisfy the Broad
Market Potential criterion, we imply that neither proposal alone is 
sufficient to
satisfy it.

May I therefore strongly urge the proponents of each of the two proposals
to concentrate on putting forward the best possible arguments in support
of their proposal.  If the Task Force concludes that both proposals satisfy
the 5 Criteria, and that both proposals should be adopted, then the Task
Force will vote accordingly.  I do not intend to entertain a "shoot out",
"choose one and only one" motion (though I may conduct a "beauty contest"
type of straw poll, where I ask the Task Force members to indicate their
favorite).  I intend to entertain motions on each of the proposals 
in the hope that the Task Force casts a >= 75% vote in favor of choice
1, 2, or 3, above.

One last note about the interpretation of our long reach objective: I
interpret our long reach objective, as we adopted it last July, to permit
only ONE PHY for long reach copper.  This would seem to eliminate
choice # 3 as an option. Based on past history, I don't think
that we can successfully argue that choice # 3 really represents only
one PHY.  As I have said before, our Task Force members may not each
possess a Ph.D. in digital signal processing, but they can all count to 

Therefore, if we adopt choice # 3, I believe that we will have a follow on
task to justify the choice, and to modify our objective(s) accordingly.  If
we adopt choice # 3 on Monday, January 6th, I will assign an action item
to the Copper Sub Task Force to carry out this task, and we will review
their work on Thursday, January 9th in general session. We will then have
to present the change(s) to the 802.3 Working Group when it meets in March.

Howard Frazier
Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force