Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
And that is assumed in Improved or enhanced FR-4 "circuit board" or "printed
circuit board" ... We are word smithing too much. Your view is already
explicitly incorporated.
-joel
On 2/25/11 8:59 AM, "Mellitz, Richard" <richard.mellitz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Conductors and construction are as important as insulator loss.
> ... Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jgoergen [mailto:jgoergen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 11:55 AM
> To: Mellitz, Richard; STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>
> Rich ... That doesn't make sense.
>
> What is your issue? I don't understand what you are trying to prevent?
>
> joel
>
>
> On 2/25/11 8:50 AM, "Mellitz, Richard" <richard.mellitz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that we used "improved FR-4 fabrications" or "improved FR-4
>> boards" so we don't solely on insulator material.
>> ...Rich
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bhavesh Patel [mailto:Bhavesh_A_Patel@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:21 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>
>> Joel, Agree that we should keep the wording 'improved FR-4' and then later
>> define what it exactly means via electrical/mechanical properties.
>> Bhavesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jgoergen [mailto:jgoergen@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:42 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>
>> John summed it well. We can discuss a set of descriptors to be further
>> detailed later in the study group, but I was hoping we could agree on the
>> improved FR-4 and then define that more implicitly as part of the channel
>> model and a study group presentation / discussion.
>>
>> Take care
>> -joel
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/11 1:47 PM, "John D'Ambrosia" <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Bhavesh,
>>> As I recall joel had provided a complete definition of the materials up to
>>> 15
>>> ghz. I would expect a similar type of definition with the appropriate
>>> frequency range.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bhavesh_A_Patel@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Bhavesh_A_Patel@xxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:12 PM
>>> To: John D'Ambrosia; STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>>
>>> Does it makes sense to specify that 'improved FR4 ' needs to have Er & Df
>>> below/above this limit @ particular frequency to meet channel criteria.
>>> Bhavesh Patel
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:57 PM
>>> To: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>>
>>> Charles,
>>> IMHO I think it is appropriate to specify what we intend to run over in the
>>> objective, as well as then provide a definition of what that means.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Charles Moore [mailto:charles.moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:53 PM
>>> To: John D'Ambrosia
>>> Cc: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>>
>>> john,
>>>
>>> My point is a very minor one and was made badly. Joel and i agree
>>> that we do not want to imply that any FR-4 is going to work. I want to
>>> get the point across by not using the term FR-4 at all, joel wants to
>>> get the point across by putting "improved" in. I am a little concerned
>>> that since the term was used in the ap objectives that it might be
>>> construed to imply the amount of improvement to make ap work.
>>>
>>> It is really a matter of communication and which words express the
>>> right idea to the largest number of people. If a straw pole says
>>> "improved FR-4" i will be happy to go along.
>>>
>>> charles
>>>
>>> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>> | Charles Moore
>>> | Avago Technologies
>>> | APD
>>> | charles.moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> | (970) 288-4561
>>> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John D'Ambrosia wrote:
>>>> Charles,
>>>> Please point out the definition "improved FR-4" in the IEEE specification.
>>>> Ultimately, in IEEE 802.3ap the Study Group defined what that meant (well
>>>> actually Joel, but it was approved by the Study Group). This was done in
>>>> order to assess whether the objectives were met.
>>>>
>>>> If the definition had found its way into the specification I would be more
>>>> inclined to support your point below. However, it wasn't, and ultimately
>>>> the
>>>> informative channel model provided the attenuation / insertion that had to
>>>> be
>>>> targeted. Then it is up to the implementer, who can use whatever material
>>>> they choose.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Charles Moore [mailto:charles.moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:11 PM
>>>> To: STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>>>
>>>> joel,
>>>>
>>>> Yes but. We used "improved FR-4" to make 10GBASE_KR work. We are
>>>> going to need something better if we want to run 2.5x faster and
>>>> 1.0-0.75x as far. What can we call that? Is it "more improved FR-4"?
>>>>
>>>> charles
>>>>
>>>> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>> | Charles Moore
>>>> | Avago Technologies
>>>> | APD
>>>> | charles.moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> | (970) 288-4561
>>>> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jgoergen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Charles
>>>>> I get where you are going, but I am against removing the "improved fr-4"
>>>>> or
>>>>> "enhanced fr-4" from any requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> My reasoning is that this implies all the channels we evaluate and the
>>>>> standard we create are intended to run across fr-4 ... Which isn't true
>>>>> from
>>>>> my point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care
>>>>> -joel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/11 9:44 AM, "Charles Moore" <charles.moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I looked at the objectives for 802.3ba and kind of liked the wording
>>>>>> there. Cribbing from it, how about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 4-lane 100 Gb/s
>>>>>> operation over:
>>>>>> * at least Xm over a copper cable assembly
>>>>>> * at least Ym over a backplane
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sidesteps the issue of defining "improver FR4", something which we
>>>>>> carefully avoided defining in 802.3ap. If we do use the term "improved
>>>>>> FR4", the actual definition will only come after we write a channel
>>>>>> spec. Then "improved FR4" is defined as any fire retardant material
>>>>>> which will allow you to build a compliant channel Ym long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> charles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>> | Charles Moore
>>>>>> | Avago Technologies
>>>>>> | APD
>>>>>> | charles.moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> | (970) 288-4561
>>>>>> |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kolesar, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for posting your planned co-authored contribution on
>>>>>>> objectives. As you said, this contribution proposes the form of the
>>>>>>> objectives and leaves the key parameters open. I have previously
>>>>>>> commented to this forum about a particular form that, while apparently
>>>>>>> approved in the past, is illogical, conflicting and ambiguous because
>>>>>>> it mixes words that define minima with words that define maxima.
>>>>>>> Specifically, slide 4 states the reach requirements using the phrase
>>>>>>> ³up to at least X m². One can take this to define a maximum of X m
>>>>>>> (i.e. ²up to²) or a minimum of X m (i.e. ³at least²). Given this
>>>>>>> conflict the only logical interpretation that can simultaneously meet
>>>>>>> both is a reach of _exactly_ X m. I do not find this acceptable and
>>>>>>> have previously proposed to state these objectives clearly as minima
>>>>>>> using the non-conflicting phrase ³of at least X m². This will avoid
>>>>>>> some problems that have occurred in the past with interpretation when
>>>>>>> the value of X was challenged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also do not understand the utility of the phrase ³consistent with².
>>>>>>> It appears to be a way to interject some flexibility. But I do not
>>>>>>> have an appreciation for what that implies. Perhaps someone could
>>>>>>> enlighten me. Without that insight I would further simplify the form
>>>>>>> to the following.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper traces on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ³improved FR-4² for link lengths of at least ³X² m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper twin-axial
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cables for link lengths of at least ³Y² m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Kolesar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:07 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* STDS-802-3-100GCU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [802.3_100GCU] WebPage Updates
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email is to inform you of two updates to the Study Group Web Pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, Mark Bugg has provided a calibration file, which will allow
>>>>>>> de-embedding of the board traces. This file may be found at
>>>>>>>
>>
>
http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GCU/public/ChannelData/Molex_11_0210/2XCAL.zip>>>>>
>
>>
>> .
>>>>>>> My thanks to Mark for providing this file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next, as discussed at our prior meeting, the SG needs to focus on
>>>>>>> setting its objectives. To that end I have worked with Howard Frazier
>>>>>>> and Adam Healey on a presentation (see
>>>>>>> http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GCU/public/mar11/dambrosia_01_0311.pdf) to
>>>>>>> discuss objectives for the project. We have proposed the forms of
>>>>>>> several objectives (leaving the important details as TBDs). I would
>>>>>>> ask that everyone review this presentation, and consider how the
>>>>>>> presentation that they plan to submit will contribute to helping us
>>>>>>> determine our objectives. This presentation is only intended as an
>>>>>>> initial list of key objectives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>