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

The offer is too tempting not to take
and I could disagree with intent, content, and context of your note


merry x-mass and
Happy new year


----- Original Message -----
From: <John.Egan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx>; <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:02 AM
Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver

> Barry,
> I believe that the point Howard made in Hawaii that a presentation per
side for #1 and #2 would be allowed should have prevented wasted effort on
your part. I am sure we all regret this has happened.
> I would also like to remind us all of the meeting in Edinburgh, where Dong
Wei's impassioned plea along with his presentation in support of #2
(g.SHDSL) were widely supported over the whole Task Force and had a majority
vote in the straw polls.
> Therefore, I believe that, given the fact that delays since that time seem
to have helped solidify support for #2 and against those continuing to delay
copper's advance, that it will achieve a strong vote and the only open
question will be: will #1 (ADSL Annex J) be able to justify the existence of
Annex J and the creation of yet another LR PHY that will somehow be
different (unique identity) than VDSL operating in the bands already defined
for it (where ADSL J operates) and SHDSL already selected for the LR PHY. I
cannot see any justification for going back for another Objective and then
defining something that does not have a unique identity.
> Respectfully,
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: O'Mahony, Barry [mailto:barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:28 AM
> To: 'Howard Frazier';
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
> Howard,
> I disagree with your characterization that there are only two potential
> proposals.  Based on the agreed motion to "limit proposals for
> consideration regarding the long reach objective to those based on
> artman_copper_1_0702 and jackson_copper_1_0702", one can construct any
> number of proposals.  But among those proposals which have been actively
> discussed in the copper track over the past few meetings, they can be
> into three major categories:
> 1.)  those based on artman_copper_1_0702 only,
> 2.)  those based on jackson_copper_1_0702 only,
> 3.)  those based on artman_copper_1_0702 and jackson_1_0702.
> This is not just a subtle semantic difference.  I believe each of these is
> distinct, separate proposal category.  #3 is not merely a cop-out
> amalgamation of #1+#2, although it certainly may appear to be at first
> glance.    Unfortunately, artificially restricting presentations to only
> those based on #1 and #2 would make it difficult to dispell this first
> impression.
> For example, if for the sake of argument, one accepts that both are needed
> in order to form a complete solution, one can hardly expect an advocate
> #1 or #2 to make the point that the other is deficient because it offers
> only a partial solution, as that would illuminate the fact that his/her
> proposal is similarly deficient.  This then leads to the argument over
> of the partial solutions is less partial than the other, which customers
> more imprtant than others, etc., far more subjective issues and a recipe
> the endless rathole discussions we've been having.
> There are other points to make along these lines, which for brevity's sake
> are best left to a presentation itself.  Technically, the key problem
> reconciling the long-reach objective and the spectrum management
> But aside from technical reasons, an approach where the only path into #3
> as some sort of "consolation prize" when/if #1 and #2 fail seems to be a
> poor way to adopt a decision.  It's almost guaranteed to leave the
> impression that #3 was adopted only because the group could not make a
> decision between  #1 and #2, and lazily chose "both".    If number #3 were
> in fact to be chosen, far better that the group does it because they
> it is the best technical decision, and  have been given all the
> upon which to feel comfortable  making it.  Considering 802.3ah is a large
> subset of 802.3, it makes even more sense for all proposals to be
> to the entire Task Force.  I thought that was the intent of doing this
> during the Monday general session.
> Finally, I must mention that all three proposals, #1, #2, and #3 have been
> discussed in the copper track for a couple of the past meetings.  While
> has reached consensus, all have gotten significatn support; none are
> something new for this meeting.  In the announcement for this meeting sent
> out 11/22, it was stated that a significant amount of time would be
> in the Monday general session  to the issues of Long-Reach copper, FEC,
> PON PMD timing.  Presentations on proposals to address them would would be
> "welcome".  It was requested that the appropriate sub-TF editor be
> prior to 12/23.  In fact, I notified Hugh prior to Thanksgiving that I was
> planning on a presentation for the long-reach issue.  To now see, at a
> date when it would be expected that work on such presentations would be
> largely completed, that some presentations now appear to be considered
> "uwelcome", is very disappointing.  I fear it will feed into the
> in some quarters in the copper track that some opinions are dismissed
> without due consideration.
> --Barry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:10 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> 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