| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Kevin, Ron That is roughly what I was targeting. My thinking is if I want to operate the network channel to “permit maximum performance” for a given capacity, then I need to establish optimal channel performance which should be close to ideal. The thought is somewhere between “baseline performance” and “perfect”(ideal) there is a point of operation which trades off all of the network factors resulting in maximal capacity for customer utilization. So “ideal” works but coupling “optimal” with Ron’s “permit maximum performance” may best convey the desired outcome. Tom From: Ron Wolfe [mailto:rwolfe@xxxxxxxxxx] Hi Kevin, Sorry I didn’t get a chance to say hello a couple of weeks ago during the Q&A session. Next time … To me, the notion of “ideal” should in fact be attainable, however, it is very unlikely that anything defined as ideal would be sustainable over time. Certainly ideal conditions would not be anticipated outside of a lab environment. Ideal conditions would represent that environment where a system performance could reasonably be expected to perform to its maximum throughput. I think you and Tom are actually saying the same thing when you consider that it is ideal conditions that represent the conditions that permit maximum performance. I think either works, though to me “ideal” was a concept I grasped immediately as representing closely controlled lab conditions, albeit with the understanding that someone else might just as immediately grasp a completely different meaning. Regards, Ron From: Noll, Kevin [mailto:kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx] Thanks for the comments, Tom, especially the reminder about the 1/10Gbps. I'll probably stick with "baseline" for now because it better conveys a multi-dimensional thought (plant conditions are very multi-dimensional). Similarly, "ideal" implies unobtainable. Could you suggest language that leaves room for obtainability? --kan-- -- Kevin A. Noll, CCIE Time Warner Cable From: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx> Kevin I couple of quick comments: slide #5 objective 3 – wording change: Develop a channel model describing a typical real-world coaxial cable plant to set the minimum baseline plant condition for the EPoC specification. Slide #6 objective 4: wording change to sub-bullet 3: a data rate higher than the baseline data rate of 1 Gb/s and up to 10 Gb/s when transmitting in assigned spectrum in ideal channel conditions that permit; Remove red words – add blue words and symbols To me the first statement sets the expectation of the operator of what a “minimum” performing coax plant must do while telling the vendor the EPoC equipment must operate to the desired performance in a minimum plant condition. The second statement indicates in an “ideal” (ie performance that <far> exceeds minimum baseline plant conditions) plant condition the expectation is performance above 1 Gb/s up to 10 Gb/s with measured performance exceeding BER and other standards currently not defined. Regards Tom From: Noll, Kevin [mailto:kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx] I have updated the objectives based on our last conference call and comments received since then. I have attached the deck as a PDF. Please review and comment. --kan-- -- Kevin A. Noll, CCIE Time Warner Cable <="" p=""> |