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

Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] questions remained unanswered at the Q&A session at 802,3bm Plenary after the presentation of welch_01_0313_optx


Just to add to Andy's line of questions, there is strong possibility that we will not converge on SMF PMD in May but the MMF >20 m could possibly reach the 75% threshold.  Out of May meeting we may end up with 1-2 of objective not being met!

Do we need to take any action or we just let them fall off or as Andy stated we let the project slip?


On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:25 PM, Andy Moorwood wrote:

Hi Dan,
if we are to "keep up" with the timeline shared at the March meeting I think the task force needs to adopt baseline proposal(s) for the various MMF and SMF options that have been discussed ?   Am I correct here ? in May we need to "decide" or "slip" ?
Appreciate your comments

From: "Daniel Dove" <ddove@xxxxxxx>
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:55:52 PM
Subject: Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] questions remained unanswered at the Q&A session at 802,3bm Plenary after the presentation of welch_01_0313_optx

Dear Participants,

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.


Dan Dove
Chair, IEEE P802.3bm

On 3/27/13 9:21 AM, Daniel Dove wrote:
Dear Participants,

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 subject.

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.

Thank you,

Dan Dove
Chair IEEE P802.3bm

On 3/25/13 12:12 PM, Daniel Dove wrote:
Hi Ali,

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 review.

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.


Dan Dove
Chair, IEEE P802.3bm