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

RE: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone Conference - 05th December




Tom,

Maybe its me, but the numbers in the table don't feel right.
For example how did the numbers for Option B set 2 be worse than Option
C? And how did Option C set 2 be worse than set 1?
Am I missing something?

From what we heard so far, the service requirement for uplink delay is
1.5ms and not 1ms.
I think calculations should be calibrated to the 1ms point to reflect
this.

Ariel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of 
> Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 09:02
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; 
> wdiab@cisco.com; btolley@cisco.com
> Subject: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone Conference - 
> 05th December
> 
> 
> Attendees
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Vipul Bhatt
> Piers Dawe
> Dora Van Deen (Sorry Dora, didn't catch your new name)
> Gerry Pasavento
> Glen Kramer
> Manyalibo Matthews 
> Lior Khermosh
> Tom Murphy 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary
> ------------------------------------
> 
> After playing with the telephone bridge for 15 min we finally 
> got together. Sorry about this, I spoke with Bruce and 
> hopefully next week things will be back to normal
> 
> There was discussion of timing values and we came up with the 
> set of values contained in the attached table.  Values for 
> option C are clear.  The two sets of values for B and C represent the 
> opinion of the group in terms of what is definitely doable 
> and what is possible with some more effort. NOTE  these 
> values were discussed independent of Efficiency etc, just 
> what PMD vendor thinks can be easily achieved based on current design
> 
> NOTE:  This slide is just for internal discussion and will 
> not be presented in Vancouver, although it may form the basis 
> of a presentation. Calculation performed with Glen's spreadsheet
> 
> 
> Next Steps
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Tackle the issue of whether parameters are to be negotiable 
> or not and the wording associated with these options. Then, 
> can we narrow down to fewer options, where are the possible 
> compromise points
> 
> Next Meeting
> ----------------------------------
> 
> I need to clarify this with Bruce
> 
> All the best
> 
> Tom
> 
>  <<PMD values II.pdf>> 
> 
> 
>