|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks for this contribution to the forward progress of the Study Group.
I would like to ask that our participants take the time to open the links below and refresh themselves on these points.
In my experience, the tendency for a Study Group to get distracted is not new, and the need to continually remind ourselves of where we are in the process is essential.
I would add that each project has its own unique characteristics and therefore the process provides boundaries but the path will always be slightly different. Given that we (100G Ethernet) have optical PMDs which already exist and satisfy broad market potential, it changes the relative importance of the 5 criteria responses. We are not just comparing ourselves to prior speeds or other media types, but to 100G PMDs that are currently available. We need to be distinct, economically feasible against those alternatives in order to meet the needs of a broad market, and demonstrate we are technically feasible as well.
Your advice is appreciated and we should all be diligent to remain within the process boundaries and seek a path that brings us to a successful PAR and 5 criteria response. In that regard, focus on the process is essential.
Jonathan and Pete are in the process of setting up a co-joined adhoc meeting that will address objectives and 5C responses for both the MMF and SMF technologies. We hope to provide that focus, and define a path for forward progress.
On 2/9/12 7:55 AM, Steven B. Carlson wrote: