[EFM] Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
Behrooz,
I don't think you understood what Jonathan was saying. I think you are also
forgetting that we, copperheads, are imposing on the Task Force to take up their
time to discuss this issue. Most people in the room will not be passionately
interested in copper issues and I think we should optimize the use of their
time. What you are suggesting is that we should ask people to sit through:
1. Presentation saying "rah, rah, ADSL is great"
2. Presentation saying "rah, rah, SHDSL is great"
3. Presentation saying "rah, rah, ADSL is great, SHDSL is great"
It seems obvious that number 3 is redundant.
The job of the ADSL presentation is to prove to the Task Force that ADSL meets
all of the criteria and there is need for ADSL as a PHY within EFM.
The job of the SHDSL presentation is to prove to the Task Force that SHDSL meets
all of the criteria and there is need for SHDSL as a PHY within EFM.
After the presentations, you may vote for ADSL (or not) and vote for SHDSL (or
not). Clearly, the Task Force may approve just one PHY, both PHYs or neither
PHY. Are you suggesting that we should allow a "vote for neither" presentation
also?
Hugh.
Behrooz Rezvani wrote:
> Jonathan, All
>
> Happy New Year
>
> I had a chance to look at Barry's presentation and I think it has solid
> arguments and very clear thinking on merits of having both line code as a
> vehicle to deliver Ethernet in the access network and it specifically also
> addresses some of the questions you suggested.
>
> I think the issues in the public access network is a fairly complex one.
> <There are couple of examples to remember. The success of wireless LAN and
> not so successful Wireless Access (MMDS/LMDS type)>
>
> I think the TF 802.3ah would benefit by hearing that discussion.
>
> Behrooz
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Thatcher" <Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Behrooz Rezvani" <brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Howard Frazier"
> <millardo@dominetsystems.com>; <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>
> Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
>
> All,
>
> I would also like to commend Howard on a well thought out note and his
> leadership here.
>
> Behrooz,
>
> I fear that this has the potential to confuse the issue. The key question
> remains: Do both, one, or neither of the two proposals meet the 5 criteria
> and satisfy the agreed upon objectives? This question needs our full focus
> and attention.
>
> jonathan
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Behrooz Rezvani [mailto:brezvani@xxxxxxxxxx]
> | Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:35 PM
> | To: Howard Frazier; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> | Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> | Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
> |
> |
> |
> | Howard,
> |
> | Very well put.
> |
> | One note: Assuming fairly equal enthusiasm and charm on both
> | sides of this
> | discussion, would it be possible for some one (i.e. Barry or
> | Nelson) to give
> | a short presentation (10 minutes) on the advantages of having
> | both solutions
> | (option 3). This is because the first 2 presentations (Artman
> | and Jackson)
> | are focusing on how good individually are on their own in
> | their respective
> | markets.
> |
> | Thanks
> | Behrooz
> |
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | To: <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>
> | Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>
> | Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:09 AM
> | Subject: [EFM-Copper] Long Reach Copper Presentations in Vancouver
> |
> |
> | >
> | > Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Copper Sub Task Force,
> | >
> | > There has been considerable discussion about the Long Reach Copper
> | > presentations that are being planned for the upcoming meeting in
> | > Vancouver. I previously announced that we would reserve the
> | > entire day on Monday, January 6th for an "all hands" meeting of
> | > the 802.3ah EFM Task Force to consider several "big ticket" items
> | > that require the attention and involvement of all of the Task Force
> | > members. One of these "big ticket" items concerns our long reach
> | > copper PHY objective.
> | >
> | > Clearly, we need to resolve the question of how we are going to meet
> | > the long reach objective. Adhering to the motion that we
> | passed last July,
> | > that limits our consideration to those proposals based on
> | the Artman and
> | > Jackson presentations (advocating PHYs based on ADSL Annex J and
> | > g.shdsl, respectively), the task force has a finite set of choices:
> | >
> | > 1) Adopt the ADSL Annex J proposal (with appropriate updates)
> | > 2) Adopt the g.shdsl proposal (with appropriate updates)
> | > 3) Adopt both proposals
> | > 4) Adopt neither proposal
> | >
> | > It is obvious to me that choice # 4 above is the least
> | desireable outcome.
> | > It is also the default outcome, because the first three
> | choices require a
> | > positive vote, while # 4 represents the status quo ante.
> | > In the hope that the Task Force can reach a >= 75% concensus on
> | > one of choices # 1-3, I request that we invest all of our
> | efforts in the
> | > task of producing EXCELLENT material in support of ADSL Annex J,
> | > and EXCELLENT material in support of g.shdsl.
> | >
> | > Each of these proposals must stand on its own, and must satisfy the
> | > 5 Criteria. Each proposal must demonstrate that it has a
> | Broad Market
> | > Potential, that it is Compatible with 802.3 and 802, that it has a
> | > Distinct Identity, that it is Technically Feasible, and that it is
> | > Economically Feasible.
> | >
> | > I have heard some individuals argue (quite eloquently) that
> | both proposals
> | > must be adopted in order to satisfy the Broad Market
> | Potential criterion.
> | > In my opinion, this is not the best argument to put forward. Neither
> | > 802.3ah
> | > nor 802.3 will adopt a proposal that fails to satisfy all of the 5
> | > Criteria, and
> | > I fear that by saying that both proposals are required to
> | satisfy the
> | Broad
> | > Market Potential criterion, we imply that neither proposal alone is
> | > sufficient to
> | > satisfy it.
> | >
> | > May I therefore strongly urge the proponents of each of the
> | two proposals
> | > to concentrate on putting forward the best possible
> | arguments in support
> | > of their proposal. If the Task Force concludes that both proposals
> | satisfy
> | > the 5 Criteria, and that both proposals should be adopted,
> | then the Task
> | > Force will vote accordingly. I do not intend to entertain
> | a "shoot out",
> | > "choose one and only one" motion (though I may conduct a
> | "beauty contest"
> | > type of straw poll, where I ask the Task Force members to
> | indicate their
> | > favorite). I intend to entertain motions on each of the proposals
> | > individually,
> | > in the hope that the Task Force casts a >= 75% vote in
> | favor of choice
> | > 1, 2, or 3, above.
> | >
> | > One last note about the interpretation of our long reach
> | objective: I
> | > interpret our long reach objective, as we adopted it last
> | July, to permit
> | > only ONE PHY for long reach copper. This would seem to eliminate
> | > choice # 3 as an option. Based on past history, I don't think
> | > that we can successfully argue that choice # 3 really
> | represents only
> | > one PHY. As I have said before, our Task Force members may not each
> | > possess a Ph.D. in digital signal processing, but they can
> | all count to
> | > two!
> | >
> | > Therefore, if we adopt choice # 3, I believe that we will
> | have a follow on
> | > task to justify the choice, and to modify our objective(s)
> | accordingly.
> | If
> | > we adopt choice # 3 on Monday, January 6th, I will assign
> | an action item
> | > to the Copper Sub Task Force to carry out this task, and we
> | will review
> | > their work on Thursday, January 9th in general session. We
> | will then have
> | > to present the change(s) to the 802.3 Working Group when it meets in
> | March.
> | >
> | > Howard Frazier
> | > Chair, IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |