Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Rick,
Hal,
I, too, like the use of the term 'node' for the fiber-to-coax converter.
And, to Marek's point, speaking of definitions rather than just name, I
think that the difference between each is:
Unit: connects a customer network to a PON, which applies to EPON and EPoC.
Terminal: connects a PON to the service provider's network and terminates
the PON, which also applies to EPON and EPoC
Node: connects one or more units in a coax segment to a PON, which only
exists in EPoC
And, when the Node is combined with the Terminal, the combined device
becomes a CLT.
Of course there is more to the definitions; I'm trying to address the
differences from the EPoC perspective.
Does the above make sense?
Thanks!
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Roberts <Hal.Roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Hal Roberts <Hal.Roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, July 21, 2012 8:58 PM
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Rick,
>
>I do like the 'Node' terminology, whether it be OCN or FCN or CFN. You
>are correct that 'Node' better describes the nature of the device than
>'Unit', which implies a terminal device rather than an intermediary
>device, which it is.
>
>You are also correct it does not contain the potentially offending "U"
>:-)
>
>Hal
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Li [mailto:Rick.Li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:20 AM
>To: 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