RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txtTopic: docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData & docsIfSigQEqualizationData
"Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com> Tue, 11 October 2005 17:59 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EPOPd-0001ad-Ed; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:59:41 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EPOPb-0001aX-Je for ipcdn@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:59:40 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18426 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:59:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com ([192.160.73.61]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EPOZk-0002yK-Lz for ipcdn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:10:09 -0400
Received: from srvxchg.cablelabs.com (srvxchg.cablelabs.com [10.5.0.20]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9BHxHUf012209; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:59:19 -0600 (MDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txtTopic: docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData & docsIfSigQEqualizationData
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:59:17 -0600
Message-ID: <5259D0D7419C6149B347837A2E64F46F01178837@srvxchg.cablelabs.com>
Thread-Topic: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txtTopic: docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData & docsIfSigQEqualizationData
Thread-Index: AcWjO0pm5pwkSOJYSvioQGI2vEiOhgE4cWKAACga3IAAAh6FUAACaROgB9+1Q8ABj7jfcA==
From: Eduardo Cardona <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>
To: Eduardo Cardona <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>, "Ipcdn (E-mail)" <ipcdn@ietf.org>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, david.raftus@ati.com
X-Approved: ondar
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 876202f9cbc0933cffbc58102e40f8f2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ipcdn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP over Cable Data Network <ipcdn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipcdn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipcdn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipcdn-bounces@ietf.org
Does anyone get the chance to review the proposed clarifications ? Please reply with comments by the end of the week Thanks Eduardo -----Original Message----- From: Eduardo Cardona Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:35 PM To: Ipcdn (E-mail); Wijnen, Bert (Bert); david.raftus@ati.com Subject: RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txtTopic: docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData & docsIfSigQEqualizationData Hi IPCDN participants, Here is an update on one of the pending items from Bert's review: After consultations with DOCSIS vendors, I am proposing the clarifications required to define the size constraints for docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData and docsIfSigQEqualizationData Please review the details and send your comments. You will find in this email a summary of the proposed changes as well as a log of comments provided by vendors to place the discussion in the context of the IPCDN participants. Please comment on the proposals and make the appropriate comments Item a) Item c) Item d) Comments and pick an alternative from b-1) and b-2) ---- CM/CMTS Equalizer Data: Summary: docsIfSigQEqualizationData and docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData have OCTET STRING with no constraints in the object size (RFC 2669), in fact the format of the pre-equalizers was never normalized and left vendor specific In draft 06 of RFIv2.0 It was added a size constraint of 512 octets but no special reason was defined: Some basic Math will indicate that up to 64 taps ( RFI requirements) and 4 bytes per tap will indicate 256 bytes, still uncertain why 512 was selected. Even though the selection of 256 (or 512) does not seem to be accurate number considering some possible byte controls to indicate: - Taps could be T, T/2 or T/4 spaced. - Forward Taps and Reverse Taps could have different numbers - Not required by the spec : Reverse Taps (DS equalizers) could be also T, T/2 and T/4 spaced - Any need to indicate main tap position ( or the highest value is enough indication of that The discussions held with RF experts identified the following management requirements : 1) CM DS post-equalization have been defined in docsIfSigQEqualizationData 2) CM Upstream pre-equalizer ( not to be defined in this version of the MIB) something to reflect the CMTS RNG-RSP equalizer value CMTS equalization Data: 3) Equalization in the Upstream has relative importance for CMTS CM path, docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData Meanings: When Pre-eq is off, the value will indicate the CM-CMTS path RF distortions. When re-eq is on, the value indicates how well pre-equalization is working as the value of all should be close to zero with the exception of the main tap 4) The equalization data per US interface defined as an average value in docsIfSigQEqualizationData This concept is confusing since there is no in the RFI spec a methodology to calculate that average. It could include : - CMs with different configuration: pre-eq on|off, - Different number of Taps per CM, - Tap spacing per CM The average formula should've being The recommendation is to remove that requirement Proposed resolution: a) Use the same format as in the CM equalization data for 1) and 3) for CM docsIfSigQEqualizationData and docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData b) remove the CMTS requirement for docsIfSigQEqualizationData - Future spec efforts will work to define more meaningful values for CMTS US that could lead to objects that defines MER measurements prior and after channel signal compensation or mitigation by the CMTS c) Description of docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData d) CM upstream pre-equalizer Perhaps in further revisions of the DOCSIS specification and RFI MIB updates Proposal details : a) -- Add a new textual Convention DocsEqualizerData ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This data type represents the equalizer data as measured at the receiver interface. The format of the equalizer follows a similar structure Transmit Equalization Adjust RNG-RSP TLV of DOCSIS RFI v1.1 specification with slight modifications as follows : 1 byte Number of forward taps per symbol 1 byte Number of reverse taps per symbol 1 byte Number of forward taps 1 byte Number of reverse taps Following are the equalizer coefficients: First forward taps coefficients : 2 bytes F1 (real), 2 bytes F1 (imag) ... 2 bytes Fn (real), 2 bytes Fn (imag) Then reverse taps coefficients : 2 bytes D1 (real), 2 bytes D1 (imag) ... 2 bytes Dm (real), 2 bytes Dm (imag) The equalizers coefficient are considered signed 16 bit integers in the range -32768 (0x8000) to 32767 (0x7FFF). DOCSIS specifications requires up to a maximum of 64 equalizer taps , therefore, this object size can get up 260 bytes (4 + 4x64). The minimum object size (other than zero) for a t-spaced Tab with a minimum of 8 symbols will be 36 (4 + 4x8)" SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE 0|36..260)) alternative b-1) docsIfSigQEqualizationData OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX DocsEqualizerData MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "At the CM, returns the equalization data for the downstream channel. At the CMTS, this object is not applicable and might return a zero-length OCTET STRING. Note that previous CMTS implementations may instantiate this object in two ways: - An equalization value different of the zero-length octet string to indicate an equalization average for the upstream channel. Those values have vendor dependent interpretation. - Return a zero-length OCTET STRING as described below. A returned zero-length OCTET STRING indicate the value is unknown or if there is no equalization data available or defined." REFERENCE "DOCSIS Radio Frequency Interface Specification, Figure 6-23." ::= { docsIfSignalQualityEntry 7 } --Note: same compliance statements as in draft 13 alternative b-2) docsIfSigQEqualizationData OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX DocsEqualizerData MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "At the CM, returns the equalization data for the downstream channel. At the CMTS, this object is not applicable and is not instantiated. Note that previous CMTS implementations may instantiate this object in two ways: - An equalization value different of the zero-length octet string to indicate an equalization average for the upstream channel. Those values have vendor dependent interpretation. - Return a zero-length OCTET STRING as described below. A returned zero-length OCTET STRING indicate the value is unknown or if there is no equalization data available or defined." REFERENCE "DOCSIS Radio Frequency Interface Specification, Figure 6-23." ::= { docsIfSignalQualityEntry 7 } -- Changes in compliance statements: docsIfBasicGroupV2 OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { docsIfDownChannelId, -- ... snip ... -- delete -- docsIfSigQEqualizationData, --- ...snip ... } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Group of objects implemented in both cable modems and cable modem termination systems." ::= { docsIfGroups 5 } docsIfCmGroupV2 OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { docsIfCmCmtsAddress, -- ... snip ... docsIfCmServiceExtTxSlotsDed, -- Add docsIfSigQEqualizationData --- ...snip ... } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Group of objects implemented in cable modems." ::= { docsIfGroups 6 } c) docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..512)) MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Equalization data for this CM as measured by the CMTS. Returns the zero-length OCTET STRING if the value is unknown or if there is no equalization data available or defined." REFERENCE "Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications: Radio Frequency Interface Specification SP-RFIv2.0-I07-041210, Figure 8-23." ::= { docsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry 8 } Summary of comments received in a vendor internal discussion Copied for IPCDN participants background ------------------ Hal Roberts - ADC Colleagues, While we are looking at this question we should make sure we end up with precise definitions of the equalization coefficient format for DOCSIS 3.0 for both the CMTS and the CM. Note that DOCSIS 3.0 Enhanced Signal Quality Monitoring goals include: - Pre-Equalization (Already in spec) * Review language to make sure output is standardized for processing. docsIfSigQEqualizationData For the cable modem "the equalization data for the downstream channel" has an unambiguous meaning. So for the cable modem it is the tap format which must be made unambiguous (this should be agreed upon by cable modem and/or cable modem chip manufacturers). With regard to the CMTS, the MIB docsIfSigQEqualizationData is supposed to provide the 'average' equalization data for the upstream channel as seen by the CMTS. This is an ambiguous statement. There is no 'average' equalization data since the equalization coefficients uniquely apply to each upstream path from each CM to the CMTS receiver. These coefficients are complex numbers, so in what way does one average them? If one can define a formula that results in a single real number from each set of coefficients as they come from the CMTS for each CM then one could envision averaging these numbers into something approaching a meaningful assessment of the linear distortions on a given upstream channel. (Tom Kolze has just such a formula and we have found it to be an accurate estimate of the MER of a channel due to distortions alone. Tom may be willing to share this with the working group). Therefore I think that the definition of 'average equalization data for the upstream channel' must be clarified or the CMTS portion of the MIB should be removed. docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData With regard to the MIB docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData, when pre-equalization is on there is little or no meaning to the equalization coefficients from the CMTS (even on a per-cable-modem basis rather than per channel). If pre-equalization is working correctly there should be very little residual channel distortion left and the coefficients will no longer have any relationship to the channel characteristics. Possibly the only use for these coefficients when pre-equalization is on, is to actually see if pre-equalization is doing the job. On the other hand, when pre-equalization is turned off, docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData will accurately reflect distortions on the RF path between the given cable modem and the CMTS receiver. Therefore I think that agreeing on the format of this MIB is what is necessary. One other suggestion, the text "Equalization data for this CM" might be clearer if it stated "Equalization data for this CM, as measured by the CMTS" Hal docsIfSigQEqualizationData OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "At the CM, returns the equalization data for the downstream channel. At the CMTS, returns the average equalization data for the upstream channel. Returns an empty string if the value is unknown or if there is no equalization data available or defined." REFERENCE "DOCSIS Radio Frequency Interface Specification, Figure 6-23." ::= { docsIfSignalQualityEntry 7 } ------------------------ Andre Lejeune - ATI We report the docsIfSigQEqualizationData for our CM in the following format: F1 (real) 16 bits, F1 (imag) 16 bits F2 (real) 16 bits, F2 (imag) 16 bits ... Fn (real) 16 bits, Fn (imag) 16 bits The number of taps is deduced from the length of the octet string. ------------------------ David Hull - Conexant The DS equalizer has never been specified in terms of its exact implementation. This has been left to the individual silicon vendor; therefore they are all a bit different. Some implementations use T spaced all the way through and (I believe) some implementations may use fractional spacing for the front end (prior to the reference tap). Not all implementations have the same length of DS equalizer or the same center tap position (relative to the overall length) either. If all we want to do is compute the frequency response by a DFT on the tap weights, I don't think it matters what the CT position is but the length and the tap spacing would need to be conveyed if fractional spacing is used. ------------------------ Andre Lejeune - ATI I am sorry I took some time to respond. I clearly needed to discuss this internally before continuing on the subject. The format I sent earlier was for our modem. But now I realize that even our own solution will be changing and the format below won't be appropriate. I agree that more information needs to be carried in this MIB. A solution proposed by Mike Grimwood is to use the format from DOCSIS 1.1, figure 6.23 (without the type and length), which allows for Main Tap Location, Spacing, number of FF and FB taps. Even that may not be sufficient, if I properly understand Dave below, if different fractional spacing is used for the different taps. I'll let Dave explain this further if he thinks it is necessary. The main tap location is not absolutely required, as it generally can be easily derived, but could be useful under certain error conditions: Main Tap Location (1 byte) Number of forward taps per symbol (1 byte) Number of forward taps (1 byte) Number of reverse taps (1 byte) F1 (real) 16 bits, F1 (imag) 16 bits F2 (real) 16 bits, F2 (imag) 16 bits ... Fn (real) 16 bits, Fn (imag) 16 bits D1 (real) 16 bits, D1 (imag) 16 bits D2 (real) 16 bits, D2 (imag) 16 bits ... Dn (real) 16 bits, Dn (imag) 16 bits ------------------------ Hal Roberts - ADC To summarize: 1. Equalization MIBS from the CM - We need well defined MIBs from the CM for both the downstream post-equalizer and the upstream pre-equalizer values. If no uniform format for the downstream taps can be defined due to proprietary implementations, perhaps the vendors can simply provide a 'frequency response or impulse response' as calculated from the equalizer (but in a uniform format). For the upstream taps it should be easy to provide a uniform tap format as it is already mostly defined in the RFI. 2. Equalization MIBS from the CMTS when Pre-equalization is OFF - As mentioned before, an average equalization data from the CMTS on a per upstream channel basis is not defined and could take a number of meanings. Without an unambiguous definition of channel based equalization data, it would be better to remove this part of the definition as it simply leads to mass confusion. Note that equalization MIBs from the CMTS on a per CM basis do have significant value for plant monitoring and debug purposes. These merely need to be defined in format; this format could be the same format as in the pre-equalizer MIB from the CM as they are representing the same plant characteristic. 3. Equalization MIBS from the CMTS when Pre-equalization is ON - These have no significant value other than seeing if pre-equalization is operating properly. When pre-equalization is operating properly then the CMTS should see little or no plant distortion and the equalizer coefficients should be close to all-zeros except for the main tap for all modems. Hal ------------------------ David Hull -Conexant With regard to #1, the definition in Fig 6-22 of the DOCSIS 1.1 spec that Andre referred to seems good enough but I would allow the number of taps per symbol to be defined independently for the forward section AND the reverse section just in case someone implemented the two sections with different tap spacing. Short of officially "specifying" the DS equalizer like we have done for the upstream one, I don't see too much more that could be done. ------------------------ Hal Roberts - ADC Dave, It may be elsewhere in the spec or it may be obvious but I think we need to have more detail, for example the numbers should be represented in a specific numerical format perhaps: "Standard twos-complement format, from -32768 (0x8000) to 32767 (0x7FFF)" as an example. Hal ------------------------ _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list IPCDN@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list IPCDN@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
- RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-doc… Eduardo Cardona
- RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-doc… Margo Dolas
- RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-doc… Eduardo Cardona
- RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-doc… Eduardo Cardona