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

Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)

All,
It is not clear to me that the letter we received should be treated differently than we would for any other joint multi-company contribution to further discussion and progress in the EPoC SG   Even though the letter has valuable opinions from the companies and individuals that signed the letter, it does not appear to have come from the SARFT chair or from the chair of any other recognized standards committee.  We did take the time to read the entire letter in full early in the day on Tuesday to the EPoC SG, which is analogous to the presentation time that is typically given for a single or multi-company contribution.

 I would agree with Matt's original proposed content for a reply letter if we decide as a study group that this multi-company letter/contribution should have a formal reply from the EPoC SG.  Maybe this is what Geoff wanted to have a discussion about today before work started on a potential reply.

Regards,
Bill

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 23:38:35 -0500
From: Matthew Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Matthew Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


You're very welcome, and speaking for myself, I very much appreciate the input, both regarding the interest for EPoC in China as well as some of the technical desires and requirements.  Additionally, I personally agree that it is important to include Chinese input into EPoC so that we can develop a standard that is applicable across the world, which I see as a highly desirable goal.  As such, I look forward to continued dialogue regarding what those requirements are and the reasoning behind them.

All of that said, even though many of the interested parties are on this reflector, given that a letter was formally submitted I believe that it is important to respond to it formally as well, so as to encourage a continuation of dialogue and collaboration on EPoC.

Thanks.

Matt

(FYI, I am responding to the below based on the translation produced by an automated translator — my apologies if I have misunderstood the intent of the note below)

From: 姚永Gmail <yy0412@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:19:38 -0600
To: Matt Schmitt <m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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 :-)

非 常感谢各位朋友对我们邮件的重视！我也认为，具体技术方案可以先放一放，目前当务之急是先把EPoC标准工作组正式成立起 来。我们的邮件主要是希望 IEEE了解，中国有线运营商支持EPoC、需要EPoC，并把EPoC当作与FTTH竞争的有效手段。同时我们希望 IEEE充分考虑中国市场的实际需 求，以达到全球统一标准、统一市场的目标。
再次表示感谢！
姚永
请华为、中兴的朋友翻译一下，转给全体成员。谢谢！
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)

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>
Reply-To: "Jain, Rajeev" <rajeevj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:20:58 -0600
To: "STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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 J

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Your name and affiliation

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->Do you in principle support the Chinese operator request to support TDD in IEEE EPOC: Yes/No

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.       <!--[endif]-->If yes, state any conditions or caveats you want to add to the response

<!--[if !supportLists]-->b.      <!--[endif]-->If no please explain reasons for  denying their request

<!--[if !supportLists]-->c.       <!--[endif]-->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.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->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

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.       <!--[endif]-->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”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.       <!--[endif]-->Do you agree with the claim in the letter that for >1 Gbps TDD offers advantages? Yes/No, please give reasons

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.       <!--[endif]-->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.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.       <!--[endif]-->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?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.       <!--[endif]-->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.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.       <!--[endif]-->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