Sorry to fill your intray with emails, but upon further
consideration, I think it would be appropriate to point out that
we also have a potential MMF clause/subclause to be written if a
>20m PHY baseline were to be adopted in May.
Consistent with the guidance below for the SMF proposals, I would
recommend that if you are planning to propose a >20m MMF
baseline (apart from the currently adopted baseline), please work
with the MMF editor (Jonathan King) to ensure that we leave
Victoria with a complete MMF draft document that can go out for
Task Force review.
Chair, IEEE P802.3bm
On 3/27/13 9:21 AM, Daniel Dove wrote:
My message to Ali contained some factual errors that were
unintended and this was brought to my attention.
First off, my statement that the "Task Force chose to
move forward with a draft development..." was inaccurate. It
should have been "Task Force discussed
a plan to move forward with a draft
development..." There was no Task Force vote or decision on this
And as Arash noted, he volunteered to produce a PAM draft. I
apologize for failing to capture that point.
As discussed in Orlando, to achieve our schedule, it will be
helpful to have a draft clause for any baseline proposal that
may be adopted. If you wish to provide a draft clause for any
particular proposal, I would suggest attending the upcoming SMF
ad hoc and communicating to the chair (Pete Anslow) or you may
contact me directly.
Chair IEEE P802.3bm
On 3/25/13 12:12 PM, Daniel Dove
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
The Task Force chose to move forward with a draft development
for both a PSM4 (Pete) and CWDM (Petar) doing the work, on the
assumption that one of these approaches *may* see sufficient
consensus to achieve a baseline proposal adoption. PSM4 was
highest in the straw polling, and CWDM was next highest.
Anyone who has confidence that they can achieve consensus on
an alternative baseline proposal is asked to also produce a
draft clause so that we can leave the May meeting with a full
draft set of clauses to move forward with into Task Force
Clearly, LR4 and ER4 will be choices available to the industry
in a 4x25 CAUI-4 based solution. Whether or not they are
sufficient to address broad market needs over time will be
defined by the Task Force.
Chair, IEEE P802.3bm