Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] MMP Ad-hoc Report and Motion
Saif,
Given the number of people with a vested interest in whether or not to require MMP in the upstream that are unable to make this next meeting due to a multiple conflicts, could we hold off on votes on MMP in the upstream?
Thanks,
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Roberts
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:00 AM
To: 'Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta)'; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: MMP Ad-hoc Report and Motion
Eugene,
I agree with your points below. Especially on the need for #2, contributions on the benefit of MMP in the upstream, (of which I believe there has only been one). The channel model now has significantly more characterization of the upstream, including path loss, than was available at the Phoenix meeting. Understanding the upstream is essential to drafting a solid contribution on the benefits of MMP in the US.
Unfortunately I also will not be able to attend the Orlando plenary, due to OFC, and will not be able to provide a contribution on this topic at that time.
Thanks,
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:33 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] MMP Ad-hoc Report and Motion
Jorge: Thanks for the efforts in the MMP Ad-hoc. I am not able to attend Orlando plenary meeting as well due to the conflict with OFC. I'd like to take the opportunity here to provide a brief written comments on this topic. I support Ed's contribution on "EPoC upstream MMP" because it inlines with our Hangzhou and San Antonio contributions on MMP, ie. MMP is not technically feasible for continuous FDD mode but may be easier for burst mode such as TDD.
However, to put explicitly supporting MMP in EPoC burst mode in motion, some other factors need take into account, for example:
1. The feasibility of MMP for burst mode at this moment is built on "burst marker" which by itself is a new proposal, first time been brought to TF. Therefore, TF should discuss and vote on burst marker first, it may need more presentations and/or discussions. Only based on the out come of the discussions and vote on burst marker, would the TF have required information to decide whether to move forward with MMP for burst mode or not, or it need further studies.
2. The benefit of MMP for burst mode upstream should be evaluated with other contributions, as point out in Ed's summary.
Regards,
Eugene
________________________________________
From: Salinger, Jorge [Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:23 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] MMP Ad-hoc Report and Motion
Dear EPoC TF colleagues,
I regret that I won't be able to attend the TF F2F meeting this week. However, Saif Rahman will kindly take my place in presenting the report for the MMP Ad-hoc, and present a motion intended to move the work of the Ad-hoc forward.
Given the conclusion of the latest straw-poll, in which a vast majority of the Ad-hoc participants agreed that adding support for MMP for bursting modes (i.e., TDD DS, TDD US and FDD US) would be appropriate, and the subsequent multiple presentations from Marc Werner and Ed Boyd regarding the implementation of MMP for bursting modes, it seems prudent to bring forth a motion for the task force members to consider. As discussed in the MMP Ad-hoc, we will present the following motion:
The EPoC standard shall support multiple modulation profiles for the bursting DS and US PHY and a single modulation profile for the continuous DS PHY.
The text of this motion is intended to explicitly call for support for multiple modulation profiles for the bursting DS and US PHYs (as included in TDD DS, TDD US and FDD US), as well as explicitly call out support of a single modulation profile for the continuous DS PHY (as included in FDD DS).
To expedite the discussion during the TF meeting, please let us know if there are any comments or suggestions with respect to the above motion. Hopefully the required majority agrees with the motion and we can move forward with the work to explicitly describe how to implement MMP according to the above motion.
Thanks!
Jorge
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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