Re: Two concerns

To: Tim Bass <ietf at linux.silkroad.com> (IETF)
Subject: Re: Two concerns
From: "Adrian J. Hooke" <adrian.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:38:49 -0800
Cc: adrian.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov (Adrian J. Hooke), Tim at linux.silkroad.com, Bass at linux.silkroad.com, <ietf at linux.silkroad.com>, travis at clark.net, Daniel.R.Glover at lerc.nasa.gov, adrian.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov, tcp-over-satellite at achtung.sp.trw.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:05:54 -0500
In-reply-to: <199803301753.MAA07435@linux.silkroad.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980330093454.00e6e8bc@pop.jpl.nasa.gov>
Sender: owner-tcp-over-satellite at achtung.sp.trw.com

Tim:

No disagreement that we need to specify a range of assumed minimum
underlying space link BER requirements. But the numbers should be based on
practical experience and achievable technical expectations, not some
marketing guy's mandate. I'll bet that there are more than a few satellite
providers out there who are biting their tongues as we debate this issue,
unable to chime-in because to do so could expose a weak flank that might
deter potential investors and steer them towards fiber.

Best regards,
Adrian J. Hooke
NASA-JPL
------------

At 12:53 PM 98/03/30 -0500, Tim Bass  (IETF) wrote:
>
>At least, miminal BER numbers should be specified as 'best estimates'
>to give all professionals in the field a vector to steer toward,
>and a common frame of reference of discussion.

References:
- Re: Two concerns
  - From: Adrian J. Hooke
- Re: Two concerns
  - From: IETF

Prev by Date: Re: Two concerns
Next by Date: Re: Two concerns
Previous by thread: Re: Two concerns
Next by thread: Re: Two concerns
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Two concerns

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.