Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Marek,
I feel strange and odd to type this email on a sunny Saturday in California.
I think you are contradicting yourself.
Yes the list you are compiling is to include necessary and common terms and define them.
I proposed two options for one of the perhaps most commonly referred acronyms, which you also already included in your first distribution. Yet you now suggest that term should be excluded from the list upon my recommendation.
If we do think the term for this remote field device should be included, then allow people to discuss for inclusion.
If we don't believe there is any purpose even to include a term of this device on the acronym list (thus its definition), then why did you include it in the first place.
Please don't impose any dogma, lets also have some common sense.
Best Rick
Sent from my iPonyExpress.
On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:29 AM, "Marek Hajduczenia" <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> My intention was not to open the whole discussion on what's in the scope and
> what's outside the scope. I would just like to complete the task at hand
> that is collect the list of terms we need to specify. Any side discussions
> are welcome as long as they serve the purpose of bringing us closer to the
> end goal. Otherwise, they are just distracting.
>
> I would suggest that if you believe that discussion on the OCU topic is
> needed, you start a separate thread but let me finish the task I took on
> Thursday. If you have anything to contribute to this discussion, I would
> welcome your input. Flaming however, is not welcome. Let's keep the
> discussion focused.
>
> Regards
>
> Marek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Alex [mailto:alexliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 21 July 2012 10:17
> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
> In the course of this week's discussions on the OCU and TDD (and the
> attempts to shut them down), I could not help be reminded of a quote from
> Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance":
>
> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
> statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has
> simply nothing to do."
>
> Why the insistent focus on the things that we *cannot* do? Things like OCU
> specification, TDD inclusion, etc.? Why not turn our attention back to
> things we *can* do, on time and on budget?
>
> Does anyone really think that the specification of the EPoC PHY (and the
> interests of the N. American and Chinese cable industries) would not be
> helped by a robust discussion of the OCU and the overall OLT-to-CNU system?
>
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:32 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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