Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Rick,
We are not yet TF - let's not get ahead of ourselves.
While I will record multiple proposals for this one term, I think you're
missing the point of why the list was distributed in the first place. I
would like us to focus on making sure that we have all terms we need, rather
than focus on what the ideal acronym is for a network element we are not
going to specify either way
Regards
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Li [mailto:Rick.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 July 2012 09:20
To: Marek Hajduczenia
Cc: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Marek, Jorge, Hal, the TF (YES!) members,
I would like to propose the following term for consideration:
- OCN (optical coax Node)
- FCN (Finer coax Node)
I believe 'Node' is more appropriate to refer to such a remote field device
in an HFC plant.
With 'Node', it also clearly differentiate from CLT and CNU, thus we have
- CLT as a 'Terminal' where all EPoC protocols must be 'terminated' on one
side
- OCN (or FCN) as a 'Node' where it provides physical or MAC layer
processing between CLT and CNUs WITHOUT affecting IOP
- CNU as a 'Unit' for subscriber access to an EPOC network
'Terminal', 'Node', 'Unit' would distinguish the functions better.
Also 'Node' does not contain potentially offending characters and can refer
to either a repeater, a bridge, or anything in between or even above.
I would also like to comment that in certain network scenario, this remote
device may not exist - where CLT is in the node location for example.
Best and have a good weekend
Rick
Sent from my iPonyExpress.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 10:09 PM, "Marek Hajduczenia" <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
wrote:
> Jorge, Hal,
>
> I will record two suggestions and we will simply take a straw poll at
> the meeting to see which option has majority preference. This will not
> change the definition of the term, just the acronym for it.
>
> Regards
>
> Marek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 20 July 2012 20:49
> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
> Hal,
>
> I agree that Optical and Coax are not parallel terms. We discussed
> this quite extensively when coming up with the name several months
> back in a pretty long Email exchange. At the time we also discussed other
options.
> Fiber-Coax are parallel terms, and so are Optical-RF. At the time when
> we discussed it we just concluded that OCU sounded better (i.e., had a
> better ring to it) than FCU or ORU.
>
> Like Marek, I'm not opposed to changing it. Could you make some
suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
> Jorge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Roberts <Hal.Roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Hal Roberts <Hal.Roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:53 PM
> To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>> Marek,
>>
>> The term has been in common use only in the study phase. We are
>> moving to the working group phase. I assumed the purpose of your
>> email (which I
>> applaud) was to tighten the acronyms and definitions. Of course the
>> definition is what matters most but terminology (acronyms) also
>> matters as people don't always have access to the definition. We have
>> this one opportunity to get it right before it becomes cast in concrete.
>>
>> If my reasoning below is wrong then please explain why. If FCU is
>> more accurate than OCU then why not use it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:20 PM
>> To: Hal Roberts; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>> Hal,
>>
>> I think you're reading too much into the name of the element. It is
>> the definition that matters primarily to me. I am OK changing it into
>> anything that is acceptable to the community, while OCU was proposed
>> as the term used most commonly until now.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Marek
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hal Roberts [mailto:Hal.Roberts@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 20 July 2012 10:58
>> To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>> Marek,
>>
>> OCU - Optical Coax Unit mixes terminology. Optical is analogous to
>> RF (both electromagnetic waves), Fiber is analogous to Coax (both
>> physical layer media). OCU compares an electromagnetic wave with a
>> physical media.
>>
>> So the device should be more properly called an ORFU Optical RF Unit
>> or RFOU RF Optical Unit (both clunky terms) or alternatively FCU -
>> Fiber Coax Unit or CFU Coax Fiber Unit. CFU has the unfortunate 'FU'
embedded.
>> FCU is pronounceable, short (3 letters) and (as far as I know) does
>> not have another pre-existing acronym in a related technology
>> associated with it that could be confused with Fiber Coax Unit.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:49 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Following the discussion in the morning, focused on the preparation
>> for September 2012 meeting, I would like to start discussion on
>> terminology for EPoC, as attached to this email. What I did so far,
>> was to go through the contributions discussed so far, to collect the
>> terms which were used most commonly in presentations and discussions,
>> with the special focus on terms generating heated discussions (infamous
PHY).
>> The content is colour
>> coded:
>>
>> - a term in green indicates that we have already a solid definition
>> in 802.3, which ought to be reused without changes
>> - a term in yellow indicates a term which is specific to EPoC, and I
>> felt sufficiently capable to propose the pass at the definition
>> - a term in red indicates a wording which I collected from one of
>> contributions, but it requires either further discussion,
>> clarification or confirmation whether it is needed at all.
>>
>> In the first pass through the list, please indicate whether any
>> critical terms are missing or unnecessary. My intent at this time is
>> to collect a complete list of terms, before we plunge into producing
>> missing definitions.
>> Please keep all discussion on the reflector so that we do not talk
>> past each other or repeat proposals. I will try to keep the list
>> updated as frequently as needed.
>>
>> Given that definitions are critical for technical discussions on
>> individual proposals, I'd suggest we complete the phase of collecting
>> terms by the 28th of July, at which time I will move to generating
>> individual missing definitions.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Marek
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> __
>> _
>>
>> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
>
> 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