| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, Not sure this message got
forwarded to the reflector, so forwarding. Regards, John From: Kolesar, Paul
[mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxx] John and group, The objectives are on the right track, but there are a few
grammatical and clarity issues. The first is an issue with the wording at the end of each. The
phrase “up to at least” is illogical and confusing because it combines words
that specify maxima (i.e. up to) with words that specify minima (i.e. at
least). While this phraseology may be following some precedent of former
objectives, it only serves to cloud the real intent. In the past these
objectives have always been interpreted as the requirements for minimum
reach. Therefore I propose that they each simply state it as such by
replacing “lengths up to at least” with “lengths of at least”. Further, I do not know what is intended by the phrase “for links
consistent with lengths”. Why use the word “consistent”? Is there a
perception of some increased flexibility or some other advantage? Please
explain. If the advantage is ambiguity, I would prefer stating objectives
more crisply. Unless your rationale for this word choice is compelling, I propose
combining these two issues into the following new phrase: “for link lengths of
at least”. Lastly, it would be simpler and clearer to place all the adjectives
describing “traces” before the noun rather than some before and some after.
Rearranging these yields ”over improved FR-4 copper traces”. With all three of these changes, the two draft objectives become: ·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
improved FR-4 copper traces for links lengths of at least “X” m. ·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
copper twin-axial cables for links lengths of at least “Y” m. Of course all these grammatical improvements do not address the main
issues which are the values of X and Y. But that is what study groups are
for. Regards, Paul Kolesar From: John D'Ambrosia
[mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] All, I wanted to try and foster some discussion on the reflector
regarding objectives for the project to help all focus their planning of
presentations for March. So what do we appear to have consensus on so far? a)
We are in a study group looking at 100GbE over
backplane and copper twin-ax b)
Legacy support indicates broad market potential would
be aided by 4 lane solutions What appears to need further consensus building? Well
the big ones would seem to be reach for both backplane and cu cabling
objectives. So if we can combine where we appear to have consensus with
what we need to resolve, the following two statements could be used as
strawmans for objectives for the group to work towards (leaving the reach #’s
as variables for now): ·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
copper traces on improved FR-4 for links consistent with lengths up to at least
“X” m. ·
Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over
copper twin-axial cables for links consistent with lengths up to at least “Y”
m. Feedback? John |