Re: [802.3_EPOC] Latest objectives proposal

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Similarly, I don't think the word "ideal" is appropriate. Taking an off the wall example, we could have a passive plant with 3GHz taps in it that gives us a boat load of spectrum. This is enough spectrum to achieve 10Gbps even though plant conditions are far from ideal. I don't think "ideal" adds to Objective 4 so we shouldn't put it in.

-- john

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ron Wolfe <rwolfe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:47 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Latest objectives proposal

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
Principal Engineer
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
o: +1-703-345-3666
m: +1-717-579-4738
AIM: knollpoi

From: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Kevin Noll <kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx" <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Latest objectives proposal

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]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:39 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Latest objectives proposal

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
Principal Engineer
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
o: +1-703-345-3666
m: +1-717-579-4738
AIM: knollpoi
<="" p="">