Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)
I also agree, and I suggest that we should have a meeting before taking any actions.
Thanks,
Eugene
________________________________________
From: Salinger, Jorge [Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:45 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)
Rajeev and team,
Given the length of the meeting today, I agree with Marek's proposed plan. Personally, I won't be able to reply until way past 9 PM, so this approach would work out better. Does that make sense?
Jorge
From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:42 PM
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)
Rajeev,
I would suggest that we hold a meeting tomorrow at 8:30 prior to the meeting (the room seems to be opened around 8 am) and discuss these rather than generate a slur of emails. There are a lot of questions in here to address and I believe face-to-face discussion will be more effective than an email exchange.
Also, you did not attach any letter to the email, so it will be hard to edit anything and send to you any comments and questions embedded in the document.
Marek
From: Jain, Rajeev [mailto:rajeevj@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 15 May 2012 18:21
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)
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 ☺
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
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1