RE: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone Conference - 05th December
Tom,
I was surprised that options B#2 and C#2 had the same utilization. So I
plugged in the values and got the following results:
Option A 90.2%
Option B #1 84.46%
Option B #1 88.32%
Option C #1 87.4%
Option C #1 89.16%
Let's compare our calculations.
---------------------------
Glen Kramer
Teknovus, Inc.
glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Office: (707)665.0400 x115
Mobile: (530)306.5039
---------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf
> Of Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:02 AM
> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org;
> wdiab@xxxxxxxxx; btolley@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EFM] Minutes from PON Optics Telephone
> Conference - 05th December
>
> Attendees
> ----------------------------------
>
> Vipul Bhatt
> Piers Dawe
> Dora Van Deen (Sorry Dora, didn't catch your new name)
> Gerry Pasavento
> Glen Kramer
> Manyalibo Matthews
> Lior Khermosh
> Tom Murphy
>
>
>
> Summary
> ------------------------------------
>
> After playing with the telephone bridge for 15 min we
> finally got together.
> Sorry about
> this, I spoke with Bruce and hopefully next week things
> will be back to
> normal
>
> There was discussion of timing values and we came up with
> the set of values
> contained in the
> attached table. Values for option C are clear. The two
> sets of values for
> B and C represent the
> opinion of the group in terms of what is definitely doable
> and what is
> possible with some more effort.
> NOTE these values were discussed independent of
> Efficiency etc, just what
> PMD vendor
> thinks can be easily achieved based on current design
>
> NOTE: This slide is just for internal discussion and will
> not be presented
> in Vancouver, although it
> may form the basis of a presentation. Calculation
> performed with Glen's
> spreadsheet
>
>
> Next Steps
> ------------------------------------
>
> Tackle the issue of whether parameters are to be
> negotiable or not and the
> wording
> associated with these options. Then, can we narrow down to
> fewer options,
> where are
> the possible compromise points
>
> Next Meeting
> ----------------------------------
>
> I need to clarify this with Bruce
>
> All the best
>
> Tom
>
> <<PMD values II.pdf>>
>