| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
That is correct, Jorge. It is all about how the group wants to proceed. If we want to be really formal or there are objections to the use / definitions, we would need to vote on them. If we feel it is a common consensus that terms mean what they are expected to mean, no formalities are needed. For individual devices (like OCU), it is just enough to have a baseline proposal submitted in the future at the TF stage and define characteristics / requirements for such a device. The name is then adopted by default if the baseline is accepted. I think we do not need to be extra formal unless there are objections voiced. I’d say that unless someone contests the expansion and capitalization of EPoC, EPoC it is. Marek From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hmm... Interesting! From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx] Jorge, If you believe this level of formalization is needed, it would take a motion at the meeting. We do not do motions via email J Marek From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Thanks! From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx] Indeed, and a silly one on my side … still does not change the fact that this “of” is in lower-case J Marek From: Curtis Knittle [mailto:C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Slight correction here, Marek, and a common mistake made when spelling out the acronym… The “o” in DPoE is for “of”, as in DOCSIS Provisioning *of* EPON. Curtis From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx] Jorge, I think “appropriate” in this context is a relative term. We, the SG members, ought to decide what the proper way of referencing the technology is. I recall in 802.3av, we spent half a day debating what to call PMDs and what EPON really is, how to designate symmetric and asymmetric options etc.. Someone might think it was a waste of time, but I think it clarified a lot and served a consensus building exercise and fostered better understanding among membership of that TF. In here, I would suggest to use “EPoC”. First, because of DPoE already defined by CableLabs, which incidentally also uses “over” in the name, and second, because this is the capitalization used in the CFI and the SG website (see http://www.ieee802.org/3/epoc/index.html). We should be consistent with that and not try to change the name unless there is a strong reason for it (e.g. would cause confusion with some other technology or brand name, which is not the case AFAIK). Hope that helps Regards Marek From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Study Group members, I see the acronym EPOC (with capital O) used in the IEEE discussions. Within the Cable Industry I have seen the acronym EPoC (with lower case o) used in our discussions, maybe borrowing from the use of the acronym DPoE (DOCSIS Provisioning of EPON). Can someone with appropriate knowledge and understanding clarify whether EPOC or EPoC is right and why? Thanks! Jorge <="" p=""> <="" p=""> |