Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_EPOC] Notes from EPoC 5-Criteria review discussion

Hesham,

Thanks! Your correction makes total sense. I can only speculate that this was a typo since clearly that's what was meant (OAM and not MAC).

Unless someone has any objection, I will highlight that correction for the next version of the 5-Criteria that we will review next Friday at a TBD timeslot.

Thanks!
Jorge

 
From: Hesham ElBakoury [mailto:Hesham.ElBakoury@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:03 AM
To: Salinger, Jorge; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Notes from EPoC 5-Criteria review discussion
 

Hi Jorge,

 

Slide #9 (Compatibility) says:

EPoC will reuse the MAC Control and OAM as defined in the current IEEE Std 802.3 for EPON with minimal augmentation if necessary, while developing new specifications for PHY sub-layers. 

 

While Slide #13 (Distinct identity) says:

The proposed project is an evolutionary extension of the coverage of EPON Multi Point Control Protocol (MPCP) and MAC, specified for IEEE Std. 802.3 EPON onto hybrid fiber-coax networks

 

Since we do not plan to change the MAC sub-layer then we can change the above text in slide #13 to be

The proposed project is an evolutionary extension of the coverage of EPON Multi Point Control Protocol (MPCP) and OAM, specified for IEEE Std. 802.3 EPON onto hybrid fiber-coax networks

 

Do you agree ?

 

Thanks

 

Hesham

 

From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:38 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_EPOC] Notes from EPoC 5-Criteria review discussion

 

All,

 

Thanks for attending the call today. Below are our notes from the discussion (not intended to capture every word), as recorded by Jim Collins from Comcast. And attached is the latest version of the slides, which is exactly as we left them on the call today. 

 

A couple of notes on the caveats and objectives of these calls (Howard, please keep me straight with this if you don't mind):

  • These meetings are in no way a replacement for the IEEE meetings. 
    • There are no motions, votes or decisions of any kind
    • These are not IEEE sponsored meetings; they are just intended to help us all discuss topics to achieve consensus
  • Any and all conclusions that we arrive during these calls need to be ratified by appropriate motions and corresponding votes during interim or plenary meetings as established by IEEE
  • The hope and objectives for these calls is that we can advance the discussion and consensus
  • We will start with the 5-Criteria, then move onto the Objectives, and could expand to other topics as appropriate

Hope the above sounds right. Please let me know of any corrections or suggestions as needed or productive.

Thanks!

Jorge

-------------------

 

Notes and Action Items:

  1. Plan on weekly calls to do advance work prior to the May meeting.  Jorge will look for potential new times.  Consider using doodle calendar and rotating times to accomodate more people's schedules across the meetings.
  2. Review and edits of EPoC 5 Criteria
    1. See updated version of the deck as we left them at the end of the meeting.  By the next meeting we will ONLY combine the text we agreed upon into single slides (we will make no other change).  We will continue the review and discussion next week
    2. Slide 10 - should we include TR69?  No.  Leave text as is.
    3. Slide 13 - do we support two PHYs? 
      1. Problem statement must include both aspects FDD and TDD
      2. 2 PHYs for different medium types - passive and active parts of the network.
      3. Could use FDD for both but a TDD would work better for passive
      4. Previous statement does allow this.  Remove strike out and add specific number of medium types.
      5. What consitutes a "media type"?  They co-exist in the network, but they are two.
      6. Are we talking about two different problem statements? 
      7. Jorge - Node+0 you don't have to cross an amplifier.  This makes a fundamental difference between how a Node+0 and a Node+X would work. 
      8. Ed - If Node+0 can support FDD and TDD then you have two solutions for one problem.  That is an issue.
      9. Perhaps identify two comm system architecture and topology (FDD, TDD)and their applicability can be derived from those archs and topology.  Each operator has a different architecture and topology. 
      10. Consensus that there are FDD and TDD. 
      11. Jorge - at Comcast we think EPoC is an alternate loop for EPON.  Use for commercial services where we already have coax. to avoid deploying fiber all the way to the premise. Run above 1GHz for the new PHY in that spectrum.  Would not have to change the topology.  Would change taps, but that is not a fundamental change.  This happens in the passive network beyond the node.  This would be the first way we would deploy - so it is not longer-term.  Would not call it a node+0,  this is an "overlay". 
      12. If you go above 1GHz then there is an aggregate power that requires an amplifier.  Jorge - would not go through the amplifier perhaps through filtering. 
      13. Requires fiber to last amplifier but this is still better than running it all the way to the building.  This is a Comcast approach to deployment. 
      14. This does not demand fiber to the last active - just to the active prior to the passive.
      15. Since we have not resolved this yet Jorge will leave the strike out on slide 13 and we will resume discussion on the next call

From: Salinger, Jorge [Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:13 AM
Required: Salinger, Jorge; EPoC Study Group; AMP MSO Team
Subject: [AMP-MSO] Review EPoC 5-Criteria
When: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:00 AM-11:00 AM.
Where: Dial-In: (866) 427-3611 Passcode: 961258 and screen Sharing: http://training.comcast.net/comcast961258

 

 

 

From: "Salinger, Jorge" <Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:19:28 -0400
To: EPoC Study Group <STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: AMP MSO Team <amp-mso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Review EPoC 5-Criteria

 

EPoC Study Group members,

 

As discussed during our last meeting the week before last, we will get together over teleconference to continue advancing the agreement on the Objectives and 5-Criteria. Given the status of the agreement on the Objectives, we will have some discussions between MSOs prior to proceeding. So, we will start with discussions on the 5-Criteria.

 

To that end I will send a meeting invitation for a proposed timeslot for an initial discussion. Hopefully that timeslot works for most people. During this meeting we will begin reviewing the 5-Criteria as we have them following the conclusion of the F2F meeting (attached to this Email). Hopefully through these meetings we can arrive to complete agreement such that we can quickly get the 5-Criteria ratified during our next meeting in Minneapolis. And, during this first call we will discuss the best timeslot for having weekly meetings.

 

Please let me know of any questions, comments or suggestions.

 

Thanks!

Jorge

 

<="" p="">