Re: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] MMF ad hoc - Thursday 27th March 2014 - SRS test diagram update

[Mike Dudek <mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] MMF ad hoc - Thursday 27th March 2014, 9am to 10.30am Pacific

I agree with Paul’s comments.

 

I also re-read clause 87 to determine why the diagram shows the use of the “Clean clock” for the signal characterization in figure 87-3.   The reason is that figure 87-3 is only used to measure J2, J9 and VECP when the sinusoidal jitter input frequency is “well within the 4 MHz to 10times LB”.  (ie it is intend to be at a frequency that the CDR in the Rx can’t track).   We need to make sure that this aspect of the test methodology is preserved in clause 95 (eg by referencing clause 87) when using this diagram.

 

Mike Dudek 

QLogic Corporation

Director Signal Integrity

26650 Aliso Viejo Parkway

Aliso Viejo  CA 92656

949 389 6269 - office.

Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

From: Kolesar, Paul [mailto:PKOLESAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 5:50 AM
To: Jonathan King; STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a_flatman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Abbott, John S Dr; Amezcua, A. (Adrian); Andy Moorwood; Anslow, Peter; Anthony Torza; Bernstein, Gary; Ephrem Wu; Gary Nicholl (gnicholl); Harry Fu; Jack Jewell; Jeffery Maki; John Petrilla; Keith Nellis; Lian Zhao; Martin Gilpatric; Phil.McClay@xxxxxx; Mike Peng Li; Mike Dudek; mnowell@xxxxxxxxx; Oren Sela; Patrick Decker; Rabinovich, Rick (Rick); Rick.Pimpinella@xxxxxxxxxxx; Robert Coenen; ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Scott Kipp; Shmuel Levy; Swanson, Steven E; Tracy, Nathan L; Vipul Bhatt
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] MMF ad hoc - Thursday 27th March 2014 - SRS test diagram update

 

Jonathan,

Thanks for your agile on-the-fly edits during yesterday’s call.  The new diagram seems to reflect what we agreed during that call.  I’ve just a couple touch-ups to suggest.

 

1.      The “Symbol error ratio” and “Bit error ratio” test outputs should be presented with equivalent appearance.  Specifically, they should both be shown within boxes or without boxes.  My interpretation of the other boxes is that each represents a hardware entity.  However, these test outputs do not.  Therefore I recommend removal of the box around “Bit error ratio”.

2.      The format of arrow pointing to “Symbol error ratio” is unlike all others.  Unless there is a good reason for this distinction, I’d recommend making it the same as the others.

 

Regards,

Paul

 

From: Jonathan King [mailto:jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:58 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100GNGOPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a_flatman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Abbott, John S Dr; Amezcua, A. (Adrian); Andy Moorwood; Anslow, Peter; Anthony Torza; Bernstein, Gary; Ephrem Wu; Gary Nicholl (gnicholl); Harry Fu; Jack Jewell; Jeffery Maki; John Petrilla; Keith Nellis; Kolesar, Paul; Lian Zhao; Martin Gilpatric; Phil.McClay@xxxxxx; Mike Peng Li; mike.dudek@xxxxxxxxxx; mnowell@xxxxxxxxx; Oren Sela; Patrick Decker; Rabinovich, Rick (Rick); Rick.Pimpinella@xxxxxxxxxxx; Robert Coenen; ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Scott Kipp; Shmuel Levy; Swanson, Steven E; Tracy, Nathan L; Vipul Bhatt
Subject: RE: [802.3_100GNGOPTX] MMF ad hoc - Thursday 27th March 2014 - SRS test diagram update

 

Dear all

Following today’s MMF ad hoc  review of the Stressed receiver conformance test diagram which will go into clause 95, here is an updated figure, implementing all the changes we’d agreed to during the call.  The last slide is the crudely edited  diagram we ended up with by the end of the call today, the first slide is the cleaned up version.

 

Please let me know

 

Thank you all for your participation this morning !

Best wishes

jonathan