[EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
Hi Hugh,
I think it is important to take few minutes of our colleagues time at .3ah
to clarify what are the real options, given that there are over 1 Billion
lines of copper out there. I know there is pressure for us copper lads to
move along, but I don't think the issues are very clean like it is in other
areas such as Optics, and by the way they have been able to settle down on
multi-port types for a given objective. If we all feel we cannot have enough
time to discuss important copper issues then one option that has been
discussed a couple of times before in the .3ah task force is whether we need
to de-couple copper from optics similar to what was done at Ge.
Regarding your comment which is it that I am advocating:
In my opinion choice 3 is the only realistic way to move forward. To see why
we need to see Barry's presentation which will act as catalyst to bring some
of neutral opinions into A+S option. I am not sure if someone who votes for
A also votes for S and vice-versa. For example it is not in the best
interest the person who likes ADSL(SHDSL) to vote for SHDSL(ADSL). I think
if option A or option B don't pass the only chance we have is to convince
the enthusiasts on both parts to compromise and let the other one also
address the Ethernet market thru (A=residential market) or (S=business
market)... some sort of equilibrium.
Best regards
Behrooz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Barrass" <hbarrass@cisco.com>
To: "Behrooz Rezvani" <brezvani@ikanos.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Thatcher" <Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com>; "Howard
Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>; <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>;
<stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
> Behrooz,
>
> I don't think you understood what Jonathan was saying. I think you are
also
> forgetting that we, copperheads, are imposing on the Task Force to take up
their
> time to discuss this issue. Most people in the room will not be
passionately
> interested in copper issues and I think we should optimize the use of
their
> time. What you are suggesting is that we should ask people to sit through:
>
> 1. Presentation saying "rah, rah, ADSL is great"
> 2. Presentation saying "rah, rah, SHDSL is great"
> 3. Presentation saying "rah, rah, ADSL is great, SHDSL is great"
>
> It seems obvious that number 3 is redundant.
>
> The job of the ADSL presentation is to prove to the Task Force that ADSL
meets
> all of the criteria and there is need for ADSL as a PHY within EFM.
>
> The job of the SHDSL presentation is to prove to the Task Force that SHDSL
meets
> all of the criteria and there is need for SHDSL as a PHY within EFM.
>
> After the presentations, you may vote for ADSL (or not) and vote for SHDSL
(or
> not). Clearly, the Task Force may approve just one PHY, both PHYs or
neither
> PHY. Are you suggesting that we should allow a "vote for neither"
presentation
> also?
>
> Hugh.
>
> Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
>
> > Jonathan, All
> >
> > Happy New Year
> >
> > I had a chance to look at Barry's presentation and I think it has solid
> > arguments and very clear thinking on merits of having both line code as
a
> > vehicle to deliver Ethernet in the access network and it specifically
also
> > addresses some of the questions you suggested.
> >
> > I think the issues in the public access network is a fairly complex one.
> > <There are couple of examples to remember. The success of wireless LAN
and
> > not so successful Wireless Access (MMDS/LMDS type)>
> >
> > I think the TF 802.3ah would benefit by hearing that discussion.
> >
> > Behrooz
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jonathan Thatcher" <Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com>
> > To: "Behrooz Rezvani" <brezvani@ikanos.com>; "Howard Frazier"
> > <millardo@dominetsystems.com>; <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>
> > Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:51 PM
> > Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I would also like to commend Howard on a well thought out note and his
> > leadership here.
> >
> > Behrooz,
> >
> > I fear that this has the potential to confuse the issue. The key
question
> > remains: Do both, one, or neither of the two proposals meet the 5
criteria
> > and satisfy the agreed upon objectives? This question needs our full
focus
> > and attention.
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> > | -----Original Message-----
> > | From: Behrooz Rezvani [mailto:brezvani@ikanos.com]
> > | Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:35 PM
> > | To: Howard Frazier; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> > | Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > | Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | Howard,
> > |
> > | 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
> > | markets.
> > |
> > | Thanks
> > | Behrooz
> > |
> > |
> > | ----- Original Message -----
> > | From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> > | To: <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>
> > | Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> > | 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
> > | 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
> > | > 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.
> > | 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
> > | >
> > | >
> > | >
> > | >
> > |
> > |
>