| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Chano, I would agree with that and have seen no evidence that two PHYs are needed, unless TDD and FDD are considered to be part of the PHY layer. The burden of proof should be on demonstrating the need for two PHYs. Hal Roberts From: Gomez Chano (LQNA MED) [mailto:Chano.Gomez@xxxxxxxxxx]
Hi, I did not attend the last conference calls, but I have been following progress through the reflector. I have a question about the wording in Objective 1, which is now "Specify at least one PHY to support subscriber access […]" while previous proposal was: "Specify a PHY to support subscriber access networks […] " Can somebody clarify the rationale for the new wording, which seems to "almost" encourage the group to develop more than one PHY? We have all seen other IEEE groups that quickly yielded to the temptation of adopting multiple PHYs as soon
as they realized that having the group agree on a single PHY was hard work. I would hate to see the same thing happening in EPoC, as this would cause market fragmentation and slow down adoption. The objective should be "one PHY". Only if the group finds at a later stage a very good reason to develop more than one PHY then that option should be considered. Just to be clear, for me it would be OK if the PHY for downstream and upstream channels have different parameters. As long as vendors do not have to face the decision of choosing between multiple and equally valid PHY options when implementing
their products, that would still qualify as "one PHY" for me. Best Regards Chano Gómez Lantiq North America On May 8, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Noll, Kevin wrote:
<epoc_objectives_for_may_2012.pdf> <="" p="">
|