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--
--
Kevin A. Noll
Principal Engineer
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Dr
Herndon, Va 20175
o: +1-703-345-3666
m: +1-717-579-4738
AIM: knollpoi
On 7/22/12 10:18 PM, "Finkelstein, Jeff (CCI-Atlanta)"
<Jeff.Finkelstein@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>A minor correction...
>
>Mid-split: the upstream/downstream frequency split is between 42 and 108
>MHz North America or 65 and 108 MHz European systems
>High-split: the upstream/downstream frequency split is above 108 MHz for
>both North America and European systems
>
>Regarding high vs top split, I agree with option 2 removing it for now.
>
>________________________________________
>From: Salinger, Jorge [Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:27 PM
>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