Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Duane,
The 2008 version of the standard will be long gone by the time we get to any
serious technical work, so the references were only incorrect indicating the
standard's year.
I believe some key terms should be included in the list, even if they just
point to 802.3 specification, at least to prevent discussions on what is a
single PHY, where people would interpret the term freely, in a manner not
really consistent with 802.3 definitions
Regards
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 July 2012 12:15
To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Duane Remein
Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Marek,
Give that this is a tool to help everyone learn the "proper" language I
don't see the need not to copy definitions from 802.3. I've done that for
all the "see Std IEEE 802.3-2008, 1.4.xx" references in the attached. Note
that your references were incorrect, were you using clause numbering from
the maintenance draft and not the 2008 edition as indicated?
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:48 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Jorge, et al.,
Here is the updated list of terms accounting for recent discussions and
suggestions.
I am off hiking
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 July 2012 07:40
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
All,
Based on everyone's comments, I would suggest the following definitions:
HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to transmit
analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case where we have
digital return, but I think that's OK)
Low split: also known as sub-split, an HFC network requiring a diplex filter
in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and
where the split between the upstream and downstream occurs below 42 MHz in 6
MHz channel plan systems and 65 MHz in 8 MHz channel plan systems
Mid split: also known as extended sub-split, an HFC network requiring a
diplex filter in which the upstream is transported in spectrum below the
downstream, and where the split between the upstream and downstream occurs
below 108 MHz
High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the upstream
is transported in spectrum below the downstream, and where the split between
the upstream and downstream occurs below 216 MHz
Top split: an HFC network requiring a triplex filter in which there are two
upstream bands, one transported in spectrum below the downstream occupying
spectrum as per either the low, mid or high splits defined above, and
another transported in spectrum above the downstream.
Regards,
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Tom Staniec <staniecjt@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:00 AM
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Good morning all
>
>I want to point to some historical perspective on the topics below.
>
>Historically:
>
>SUB-SPLIT: defined as a cross over point of 42 MHz where the sub-low
>return is below 42 MHz with the forward being above.
>
>That places an EXTENDED SUB Split at 88 MHz, the start of the FM radio
>band, where everything below 88 MHz would represent return and
>everything above
>88
>MHz is the forward.
>
>MID-SPLIT defined the cross over point of the diplex filter as 108 MHz
>where everything below 108 MHz represents the return band. Everything
>above 108 MHz represents the forward.
>
>HIGH SPLIT is a little more difficult to define. Traditionally the high
>split was placed above channel 13 top end frequency is 216 MHz where
>everything below 216 MHz is return and above is forward network.
>
>TOP SPLIT is interesting and, again, historically first appeared as a
>result of TWC FSN (Full Service Network - if my memory is correct) a
>proof of concept network built in Orlando, Florida but was referred to,
>in my recollection, as HIGH RETURN. So I think we need to rethink and
>reflect on how this is described. To Jeff's point, today this reflects
>a "tri-plex filtering system.
>
>Incidentally, HIGH RETURN, at the time was considered not feasible for
>use for 2 reasons: 1- it placed a top end limit on what cable operators
>could offer for services and limited channel growth and 2- it required
>too much power to operate a return in for a communications channel.
>With everything moving to an IP delivery which frankly could mean
>unbounded channels the capacity limit in number 1 above may be moot. As
>for number 2, because power amplifier technology has evolved along with
>modulation, detection and error correction schemes, this may be more
>attainable but also may require significant changes in network
>architecture.
>
>I hope this presents some perspective which we may want to follow for
>consistency at this point.
>
>Regards
>Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: <Finkelstein>, Jeff Finkelstein <Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Jeff Finkelstein <Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:03 PM
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>To me top-split means a triplex scenario where a second split goes
>above the downstream, not necessarily only for an upstream but that is
>how we typically view it.
>
>Some scenarios have a legacy upstream being below the downstream, then
>a second upstream being above the downstream spectrum. I think this is
>what has been referred to as top-split in respect to this discussion.
>
>________________________________________
>From: Noll, Kevin [kevin.noll@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:47 PM
>To: Finkelstein, Jeff (CCI-Atlanta); STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>I have always understood top-split to mean that the upstream goes above
>the currently designed upper plant limits. Usually this means >750MHz
>or in some contexts >1GHz. Agreed that it isn't always clear on the
>exact frequency, but it is clear that it is higher than a high-split.
>
>--kan--
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:30 AM
>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Jorge,
>
>I included both proposed definitions. Until clarification on the use of
>top-split is made, I will keep the term in the list tentatively and
>follow the discussion.
>
>Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: <Kelsen>, Mike Kelsen <michael.kelsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:32 PM
To: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Jorge,
>
>I'd lean towards #1 and keep the top split definition even if just to
>say it was considered and dropped for various reasons.
>
>-Mike
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 22 July 2012 10:28
>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Marek,
>
>I think I would correct the definitions of Mid- and High-split, as
>follows:
>
>Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>downstream occurs between 65 and 100 MHz
>
>High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>downstream occurs above 100 MHz
>
>I still have some concern about a conflict between the definitions of
>High-
>and Top-split since they could overlap. Maybe we could solve it in one
>of two ways: 1. add something like "the upstream transmission occupies
>spectrum below the downstream" for low-, mid- and high-split
>definitions, or 2. Get rid of the top-split altogether since we won't
>be considering that option (as we discussed in the meeting in San
>Diego).
>
>I wonder what others, especially my MSO/CL colleagues, think.
>
>Thanks!
>Jorge
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:14 PM
>To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Marek,
>
>To add to your list, here is a start for the definitions for the
>various splits, and one additional definition (HFC):
>
>HFC: a hybrid fiber-coax cable network, in which fiber is used to
>transmit analog RF signals (note: this definition excludes the case
>where we have digital return, but I think that's OK)
>
>Low split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>downstream occurs below 65 MHz
>
>Mid split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>downstream occurs below 100 MHz
>
>High split: an HFC network in which the split between the upstream and
>downstream occurs below 200 MHz
>
>
>Top split: an HFC network in which the upstream is placed above the
>downstream
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Jorge
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
>Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:48 PM
>To: EPoC Study Group <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