| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Matt, One way of addressing that would be to attach a copy of the latest objectives to whatever response we generate, indicating clearly that this is the latest (yet not final) set of objectives. I think that would serve as a clear indication what we are looking at doing. With that said, the response could be very short, friendly and does not require addressing the questions Rajeev posted before, leaning closely to what you suggested in your previous email. Marek From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Marek, I agree that the Objectives, 5 Criteria, and the PAR need to remain our top priorities, so anything that detracts from getting those done should be deferred. Also, you're absolutely right that we should not represent any decisions that are not yet made, per se. In that sense, I'd be fine with what you suggest. That said, I think we should get out a response sooner rather than later as a means to building a relationship. Which is part of why I would argue for a fairly short, simple response that doesn't dig into issues, at least at this time. Thanks. Matt From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx> Matt, I second your concerns. Furthermore, we cannot really state anything about the objectives of the project until they are approved by at least by this Study Group (and ideally, by 802.3 WG in July). We have various proposals for extending objectives tomorrow and making such definite statements ahead of reaching agreement within SG is premature. It might be worth, perhaps, to prioritize discussion on objectives tomorrow morning and come back to the letter after that. We would be in much better position to generate response to that latter once we know what the situation with the objectives are Marek From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Rajeev, Thanks much for taking point on this — greatly appreciated. That said, I would suggest a slightly different approach. I'm concerned that trying to dig down into each specific point will only result in a lot of debate on our end, and not really accomplish anything in terms of a response as well. If they had asked questions on each of these points, then perhaps a response of some type would be more appropriate; however, I don't believe there are questions — only inputs — and so in my opinion a detailed response is not required. Rather, I think that a much shorter, simpler response might be better. More specifically, I would suggest that we thank them for submitting the letter, that we encourage them to participate in the future as best they are able, etc. We should also endorse their suggestion of holding a meeting in China in order to better solicit that input and allow for an interactive discussion. The one area in which I believe a bit more detail is required/warranted would be in the area of TDD/FDD. That said, I don't think we should state an opinion either way per se; rather, I think it's better to just make clear that we are deliberately leaving the door open for both FDD and TDD in our Objectives so that we can work through that issue in the Task Force phase. We could even state that there is interest in both in the Study Group, although I'm not sure that's necessary. To me, the key is just reassuring them that we're not doing anything to rule out TDD, which is in fact the case. Thoughts? Thanks. Matt From: "Jain, Rajeev" <rajeevj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Team, Given that we may not get to an ad-hoc today on this issue I am requesting written inputs from those of you want to serve on the ad-hoc to the following questions. I will compile your responses tonight to take a first stab and suggest we meet tomorrow morning (since we have open time) after the presentations to finalize this. The questions address each of the points raised in the letter. Please feel free to not answerany of the questions if you do not want to. Please respond by 9 p.m. tonight. I have tied to simplify so you can respond quickly J 1. Your name and affiliation 2. Do you in principle support the Chinese operator request to support TDD in IEEE EPOC: Yes/No a. If yes, state any conditions or caveats you want to add to the response b. If no please explain reasons for denying their request c. Cross reference in letter: “To summarize, we should consider supporting both FDD and TDD modes at the 1 Gbps service level, which will utilize spectrum below 1 GHz, which is largely amplified. However, in the expansion toward 10 Gbps service levels, which will utilize the spectrum above 1 GHz which is largely unamplified, TDD seems like a reasonable choice.” 3. Do you support and see economic benefit in a harmonization of HiNOC and EPOC, meaning that these two are one and the same standard? Yes/ No with reasons a. Cross reference in letter “We strongly believe that harmonization between EPoC and HiNOC would be highly beneficial to the global industry, as the possibility of having chipsets that support both EPoC and HiNOC would lower costs for the entire supply chain, right on up through to the operators. The HiNOC standard is TDMA/TDD, a fact which we hope will be taken in account in the IEEE” 4. Do you agree with the claim in the letter that for >1 Gbps TDD offers advantages? Yes/No, please give reasons a. Cross-reference text from letter: “Moreover, if the cost and complexity of network re-planning is to be averted, there must be sufficient spectrum up front to match the data rates on the optical segment. In the case of 10G symmetrical EPON, this would be 1.2 GHz each for upstream and downstream assuming the spectral efficiency achieved by 4096-QAM – not a realistic assumption. The advantage of TDD in this case is clear: the ability to flexibly aggregate fragments of spectrum as they become available.” “To summarize, we should consider supporting both FDD and TDD modes at the 1 Gbps service level, which will utilize spectrum below 1 GHz, which is largely amplified. However, in the expansion toward 10 Gbps service levels, which will utilize the spectrum above 1 GHz which is largely unamplified, TDD seems like a reasonable choice.” 5. Given network discrepancies between NA and China, do you agree with the suggestion in the letter that that EPOC will need reconditioning of networks on NA and therefore allow for modifications to support TDD if desired? a. Cross reference text from letter: “In the existing N+n cable plants of N. America and Europe, there are many unanswered questions about how the plant will be reconditioned to support EPoC. Replacement of taps, splitters, amplifiers? In the case that the plant is not reconditioned, maximum data rates may top out at 1 Gbps, in which case the use case of EPoC is limited. We believe that only in the context of multi-Gbps data rates does EPoC make sense, since only then is it future proofed against the encroachment of FTTH deployments. This almost certainly implies the deployment of EPoC into N+0 plant, where TDD provides the maximum flexibility.” 6. Any other comments/questions you want to add to the response (incase my excerpts above do not cover all the key points we need to respond to). If more convenient also please feel free to edit the attached letter and put your ocments and questions using “add comment” and “track changes” in WORD. I would greatly appreciate a response by 9 p.m. tonight. Thank you ! Rajeev <="" p=""> |