Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Jorge,
I saw many *final* versions, and it is hard to say which one is indeed the
final one. I copied what I thought was the latest one, i.e., from an email
with the latest timestamp. Seems that I was wrong
I will copy what you have below
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 05 August 2012 07:18
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
Marek,
I think that after much discussion on the terms low, mid, high and top
split, we ended up with the definitions included below. I *think* that the
version you have in the list of terms that you just sent is not the latest
one. Hopefully I did not miss a later update, but please correct me if I am
wrong.
Regards,
Jorge
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 cross-over between the upstream and downstream occurs between 42
and 54 MHz in 6 MHz channel plan systems and between 65 and 85 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 cross-over between the upstream and downstream
occurs between 85 and 108 MHz
High split: an HFC network requiring a diplex filter in which the upstream
is transported in spectrum below the downstream in spectrum above 108 MHz
Top split: an HFC network requiring a triplex filter in which there are two
upstream bands, one transported in spectrum below the downstream with the
cross-over as per either the low, mid or high splits defined above, and
another transported in spectrum above the downstream.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
Reply-To: Marek Hajduczenia <marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:45 AM
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>Dear colleagues,
>
>The list of terms was updated, as shown in the attached document with
>tracked changes. Note specifically the extension in definitions of TDD
>and FDD and difference between these modes and half and full duplex,
>which I quote from the current version of P802.3bh (future 802.3-2012).
>
>I would also like to ask for input on missing terms and definitions. Is
>there any specific wording that you would like to see in the definition
>which is currently missing? If so, please do let me know.
>
>Thank you
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>Sent: 26 July 2012 18:22
>To: 'STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: RE: [802.3_EPOC] Action items for September 2012 meeting
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>Attached please find the updated version of the list of terms. If I do
>not hear any additional requests for new terms by Friday EBD, I would
>like to proceed to collect proposals for definitions, especially for
>terms which do not have currently any definitions assigned to them.
>
>Marek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
>Sent: 24 July 2012 07:27
>To: 'Duane Remein'; 'STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: 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
________________________________________________________________________
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