[EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] Copper questions for EFM
Hi all,
I would like to comment on the following statements in Hugh's e-mail.
>2. St. Louis copper sub task force
>We spent a lot of time in the copper STF discussing what would happen after
we choose a
>baseline - particularly the choosing of a line code. As a result, there was
a lot of
>division and (though I hate to say it) ill-feeling. Despite all this, we
passed the
>baseline proposal by >80%. The rival baseline proposal was rejected by
>80%.
According to my notes, the voting result for the first baseline proposal in
the copper STF was Y:37, N:10, A:9. This implies that the copper STF passed
the proposal by about 78.7% instead of by >80%. In fact, it was just two
votes away from being rejected. The voting result for the rival baseline
proposal was Y:14, N:32, A:16. This implies that it was rejected by about
69.6% instead of by >80%. Therefore, the two statements made in Hugh's
e-mail on voting results are incorrect.
I think that telling the truth is one of the first few steps to give and get
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Regards,
Dong Wei, Ph.D.
Senior Member of Technical Staff - Broadband Access
SBC Technology Resources, Inc.
9505 Arboretum Blvd., Austin, TX 78759
Phone: (512) 372-5615 Fax: (512) 372-5691
Pager: (888) 520-1559
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of
SBC, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named
recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender at 512 372-5615 and delete this
message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Barrass [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:18 AM
To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
Subject: [EFM-Copper] Copper questions for EFM
Fellow EFM'ers,
Following the St. Louis meeting, we (the whole EFM TF) have some serious
questions to
consider regarding the copper effort. Those of you who were at the meeting
will remember
that there was much confusion over copper baselines and proposals. A
super-brief
summary:
1. The Raleigh compromise
After much debate & discussion regarding seemingly incompatible goals and
objectives, we
reached a compromise which seemed acceptable to both the "DSL-types" and the
"Ethernet-old-guard."
802.3ah would define a single PHY, aimed at short reach, high bandwidth
applications.
This definition would be based on VDSL and would preserve the interface
definitions from
T1E1.4 (alpha/beta) and ITU-T SG15/Q4 (gamma) which would enable other
standards to be
defined in a compatible manner. These would include (but not be limited to)
SHDSL, ADSL
and the to-be-developed 10MDSL.
As a result, we passed the copper objectives unanimously in the Task Force.
2. St. Louis copper sub task force
We spent a lot of time in the copper STF discussing what would happen after
we choose a
baseline - particularly the choosing of a line code. As a result, there was
a lot of
division and (though I hate to say it) ill-feeling. Despite all this, we
passed the
baseline proposal by >80%. The rival baseline proposal was rejected by >80%.
3. St. Louis surprise motion
A motion was introduced in the closing Task Force session which was not on
the agenda.
This motion said, in essence, that we should reject the copper objectives
and baselines
and replace them with new versions proposed. This motion got >60% support
but failed to
win the 75% it needed to be binding.
The fact that it got a majority (albeit slim) is a major problem for the
copper STF as
it shows that the consensus reached in 1 & 2 above is completely invalid.
4. St. Louis baseline vote
When the copper STF presented their baseline adoption to the main Task Force
the
proposal got a majority but failed to reach the 75% needed for adoption.
This may be
largely due to the discussion and ensuing confusion following the surprise
motion.
The net effect is that the copper STF is without a baseline.
====================================================================
So this leaves us with some questions which need to be addressed by the Task
Force to
resolve the copper problems:
A. What do you want the copper STF to do?
This is the big question - do you want the copper STF to disband (meaning
that we
resubmit the PAR for 802.3ah without a copper track)? do you want to restate
the copper
objectives (also meaning a resubmission of the PAR to 802.3)? do you want
the copper STF
to choose a different baseline (or to choose in a different manner) which
meets the
agreed objectives?
B. How can we maintain consensus from one meeting to the next?
If we can swing from unanimous support to 60% opposition in 2 months - on
the basis of a
surprise motion, how can we continue with any degree of confidence?
C. When and how must these questions be answered?
Do we need a "final resolution" in May? Can we make such a resolution in an
interim and
expect it to hold for the Plenary?
I look forward to any input on this subject. Feel free to send responses to
the
reflector or to myself privately as appropriate.
Hugh.