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

[EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver


Very well put.

One note: Assuming fairly equal enthusiasm and charm on both sides of this
discussion, would it be possible for some one (i.e. Barry or Nelson) to give
a short presentation (10 minutes) on the advantages of having both solutions
(option 3). This is because the first 2 presentations (Artman and Jackson)
are focusing on how good individually are on their own in their respective


----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: [EFM-Copper] 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
> 802.3ah
> 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
> 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
> 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
> individually,
> 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
> two!
> 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.
> 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
> Howard Frazier
> Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force