Re: [802.3_EPOC] Response to China Operator letter: PLEASE REPLY TONGHT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE ON THE AD-HOC :-)
First, here is a translation of Mr. Yao Yang latest Email below obtained
from the Google automated translator
Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen of great importance forour
e-mail!
I also think that the specific technical solutions can be putto put the
priority
now is the first EPoC Standards Working Groupwas formally established.
Our main
e-mail is that IEEE is understood that the cable operators in China to
support
EPoC need EPoC andEPoC as an effective means to compete with FTTH.
Meanwhile, we
hope that the IEEE give full consideration to the actual needs of
theChinese
market, in order to achieve a global standard, the goal of a unified
market.
Thanks again!
YAO Yong
Huawei, ZTE's friends translated and forwarded to all members of the
Thank you!
Mr. Yao Yong, (请在下面看到一个翻译中文。)
This is a response from me personally, and not a response from the EPoC
Study Group.
Thanks so much for your Email from Friday and for your note below. I am
very happy that even though you, or other members of SARFT, or Chinese
MSOs are unable to attend the meetings so far, you are still able to stay
abreast of the EPoC's Study Group progress, and can provide input.
As a key member of the Comcast team participating in the EPoC Study Group,
I share on the goals of harmonizing the HINOC and EPoC efforts as you
pointed out in your letter under item #3. Hopefully we can achieve an
outcome of commonality between HINOC and EPoC that would enable the
development of silicon and systems that would operate for both the
Chinese, North American, European, and worldwide cable systems. To me,
this is one of the best outcomes that we can achieve, above and beyond the
specifics for each of the technical objectives, and is a goal that I know
other MSOs in the EPoC Study Group share as well.
Lastly, I would like to confirm the source of the input that your letter
provides since the letter does not specifically identify the source, and
the Email address is from GMAIL and not from a specific entity. To that
end, could you confirm that the text of the letter was composed by the
SARFT's Technical Working Group, and that the contents of the letter
represents the input from the MSOs, agencies and suppliers included in the
signature section of the letter?
Thanks!
Jorge Salinger
Vice President, Access Architecture
Comcast Cable
EPoC SG Colleagues,
From the letter's signature section, I believe that Mr. Yao Yong
represents a Technical Working Group of SARFT, and as such represents
SARFT and Chinese MSOs, and the suppliers that undersign the letter
(pending their confirmation). Hopefully we can get confirmation from him
and the suppliers mentioned in the letter as per my question to Mr. Yao
Yong above.
Assuming that is the case, and as I interpret Bill's suggestion, I believe
that we could consider the input provided by Mr. Yao Yong as any other
input from any other participant as we review the Objectives, 5-Criteria
and PAR during our meeting today. While we may have some questions
regarding the contents of the letter (for which we may not be able to get
answers quickly enough for our meeting today), it is clear from the letter
that operation of EPoC above 1 GHz and as a TDD system are highly
desirable for the Chinese markets. Furthermore, I think that there are
enough participants attending the EPoC Study Group meeting today that
share these preferences, including myself and others that presented
yesterday, so I believe that these preferences will be well represented.
I further believe that our current drafts for the Goals and 5-Criteria
enable these preferences, which some of the EPoC Study Group (again,
including myself) share. I therefore advocate that we make it possible for
the EPoC Task Force to tackle these preferences through the Objectives,
5-Criteria and PAR as we have them drafted for discussion during our
meeting today.
It is clear from the discussion at the EPoC Study Group yesterday that
many EPoC Study Group participants challenge these preferences as feasible
and even as necessary. We are likely to hear more debate about that during
our session today. But, whether in the end we are collectively able to
make operation above 1 GHz possible and/or a TDD implementation of EPoC
work, or whether a different solution is found to achieve these
preferences, I believe we agree in that this is a topic for the EPoC Task
Force to tackle (if, when and once the EPoC Task Force is formed), and not
for the EPoC Study Group to decide.
Hope the above makes sense to all and allows us to move forward.
Regards,
Jorge
Translation to Chinese of my note above to Mr. Yao Yong provided by the
Google automated translator.
这是从我个人而言，而不是从EPOC研究小组的响应响应。
非常感谢您的电子邮件从上周五和你下面的说明。我很高兴，即使你，或其他成员，国家广
电总局或中国的MSO是迄今未能出席会议，你仍然能够留EPOC的研究小组
进展情况，并能提供输入。
我作为一个康卡斯特EPOC的研究小组在参赛队伍的重要成员，共同协调HINOC和EPOC努力
为你指出你在信中＃3项的目标。希望我们能实现之间HINOC和
EPOC共性的结果，这将使芯片和系统，无论是中国，北美，欧洲和世界各地的有线电视系统
经营的发展。对我来说，这是超出每一个技术目标的具体细节，我们可以实
现最好的结果之一，是一个目标，我知道在EPOC研究小组份额以及其它MSO。
最后，我想你的来信提供，因为这封信没有明确查明来源，从Gmail，而不是从某个特定实体
的电子邮件地址是确认输入源。为此，你可以确认的字母文字是由国家广
电总局的技术工作组的组成，信的内容代表的MSO，机构和供应商在信的签名部分包括输
入？
谢谢！
豪尔赫·塞林格
副总统，访问架构
康卡斯特有线电视
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:55 AM
To: EPoC Study Group <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 :-)
>Eugene,
>
>I think that is a very good idea. Then, at this time, it would be just
>enough to thank them for the letter, the time they took to generate it
>and send such a suggestion in reply.
>
>As an informational point, in any bilingual documents in the future it
>would be also welcome to include the name of the person translating the
>document between languages to make sure we avoid concerns about the
>quality of the translation itself, just like the discussion we had
>yesterday at the beginning of the meeting.
>
>Regards
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: 16 May 2012 06:46
>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 :-)
>
>The joint contribution or letter from 5 cable operators, a research lab,
>9 vendors and a broadcast association from China raised some interesting
>questions and opinions; and provided good values. In order for the EPOC
>SG to better understand the ideas embedded in the letter, I suggest that
>the authors turn the informal letter into a formal contribution and then
>present it formally to the EPOC SG so that we can have a better
>understanding of the proposal.
>
>Regards,
>Eugene
>________________________________________
>From: Bill Powell [bill.powell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:41 AM
>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 :-)
>
>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><mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Matthew Schmitt
><m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To:
>STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>ORG>
>
>
>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<mailto:yy0412@xxxxxxxxx>>
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:19:38 -0600
>To: Matt Schmitt
><m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>"STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>G>"
><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>G>>
>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 -----
>From: Matthew Schmitt<mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To:
>STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>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<mailto:rajeevj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>Reply-To: "Jain, Rajeev"
><rajeevj@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rajeevj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:20:58 -0600
>To:
>"STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>g>"
><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>g>>
>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 ☺
>
><!--[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
>
>________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>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
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>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
________________________________________________________________________
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