Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Continue with EPoC MMP Ad-hoc Meetings
To facilitate our discussions on the MMP efficiency model next week, I want
to pose a few items that the Ad Hoc team will need to acheive consensus on:
1. Modem traffic model per profile
- first, we need to come up with *a reasonable set* of Modem profile
distribution and estimated bit loading per profile
- as first step, I'm assuming traffic distribution mirrors modem
profile distribution; next, we need to look at how much traffic
distribution might vary and what is a good metric for our analysis
2. Multicast traffic
- what is a reasonable range of multicast traffic that we should use
for our analysis?
- Should this range be a % of total capacity or is it a fixed amount
independent of channel width?
There are two other items that I am aware of now that might also impact MMP
efficiency. One that I mentioned in my Phoenix presentation was some D3.1
material that indicated micro-reflections impacts may not be uniform across
the profiles, hurting higher profiles more. I will contact the authors
off-line and see if we can get a presentation on this topic to the Ad Hoc.
A new issue came up in Phoenix during Ed Boyd's presentation. Ed pointed
out that a high frequency of gate messages may force us to switch between
profiles more often than our current analysis shows. This is not in my
model today. We will need Ed on the call to analyze this further, maybe
Thurs?? Hopefully Nicola or others can come with contributions on this
topic.
If anyone else has feedback on the model, please forward so I can keep it
up to date.
-- john
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Salinger, Jorge <
Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Thanks for all the active participation in the MMP Ad-hoc meetings in
> the pas week.
>
> Following up on the discussion and conclusions at the F2F meeting last
> week, we will proceed as follows:
>
> - Continue the Ad-hoc until the 802 Plenary in March, 2013 with its
> current objective to make a decision on whether to include MMP or not into
> the EPoC Standard, and
>
>
> - If the Ad-hoc agrees that MMP should be implemented in some or all
> use cases, then expand the objective of the Ad-Hoc to achieve consensus on
> how MMP would be implemented.
>
> To that end, given the objective to conclude the discussions by the time
> of the plenary in Orlando, and the need to expand to multiple hours or
> multiple meetings per week, I will set-up 2 recurring weekly meetings of
> the MMP ad-hoc until the next plenary meeting in March, as follows:
>
> - Continue scheduling meetings every Tuesday at 9 AM ET, and
> - Given the inconvenience of the Tuesday 9 AM ET timeslot for
> participants from the West coast, I will schedule an additional weekly call
> for Thursdays at 1 PM ET.
>
> Please see meeting invitations following this Email.
>
> Given the discussion and conclusions so far, our agenda moving forward
> will include the following topics:
>
> 1. Review pending questions on the MMP model provided by John Ulm
>
> 2. Consider MMP becoming an option for EPoC (this seems to be the most
> viable option)
>
>
> - Building into the standards the necessary "hooks" for MMP to be
> implementable
>
>
> - Establish the various interoperability scenarios
>
> 3. Consider MMP being required for TDD and not for FDD (this seems to be
> another viable scenario)
>
> 4. Discuss Adaptive Bit Loading for SMP and MMP: this is a related topic
> that makes sense to incorporate
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.
>
> 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