Re: [8023-10GEPON] Define TDP values
Dear Hamano-san,
I believe I already explained how the TDP selection process worked in IEEE 802.3ah group. I do not have any information on the 802.3ae group, but I would suspect that the iteration process was the same. That is why vendor feedback is critical - otherwise we will include in the standard the TDP values which do not reflect reality.
BR
Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A. - COO BBA DSLAM R&D
Rua Irmãos Siemens, 1, Ed. 1, Piso 1
Alfragide, 2720-093 Amadora, Portugal
* marek.hajduczenia@nsn.com
(+351.21.416.7472 4+351.21.424.2082
-----Original Message-----
From: Hiroshi Hamano [mailto:hamano.hiroshi@JP.FUJITSU.COM]
Sent: quinta-feira, 22 de Novembro de 2007 10:27
To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Define TDP values
Dear Dr. Maricondo and Dr. Hajduczenia,
Thank you for your quick response and discussion.
I am not sure how TDP values have been defined in the previous specifications
such as IEEE 802.3ae and 802.3ah. If they have also reflected the vendor data
based on the transmitter measurement results, vendor feedbacks may be quite
important similarly for 10GE-PON.
> but should read *(Dispersion_Penalty+TDP)
> <= ITU_Optical_Path_Penalty* to insure all possible noise and penalties are
> accounted for.
Perhaps, I misunderstand the last sentence of Dr. Maricondo's E-mail.
But my understanding is that ITU_optical_path_penalty basically includes no
transmitter penalty. Receiver sensitivity value in ITU formalism should share
the margin, instead, for possible transmitter penalty compared to the ideal one.
Would you please explain again your intension about the sentence??
Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
%% "Ken Maricondo" <kmaricondo@ieee.org>
%% Re: [8023-10GEPON] Define TDP values
%% Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:31 -0500
>
> Dear Hamano-san,
>
> Although the TDP is a controversial value to be added to the 10GEPON
> standard, I have to agree with the previous committee ( 802.3ah) for
> assigning a TDP value; albeit not an apparent benefit, the TDP does set a
> reference value/point for determining transmitter quality which does impacts
> system performance. I agree with your assessment that the lack of high
> power reference transmitter to make a TDP measurement at this time is a
> problem. In the absence of such a reference transmitter/s, I think that the
> TDP values you have chosen are a good reference point to start with and I
> support you on this issue.
>
> I also think that the spreadsheet should reflect the impact of TDP on the
> systems' overall performance. From what I have been able to determine, the
> TDP value is subtracted from the *IEEE_Rx_Stressed_Sensitivity_OMA* to get *
> IEEE_Rx_Sen_OMA*, which does not readily translate into a system performance
> impact/limitation. The system pass/fail calculation is based on
> *Dispersion_Penalty
> <= ITU_Optical_Path_Penalty* only, but should read *(Dispersion_Penalty+TDP)
> <= ITU_Optical_Path_Penalty* to insure all possible noise and penalties are
> accounted for.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken Maricondo
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2007 6:34 AM, Hiroshi Hamano <hamano.hiroshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Madam and Sirs,
> >
> > I am Hiroshi Hamano, Fujitsu Labs., participating in IEEE 802.3av 10GE-PON
> > Task Force
> > meeting.
> >
> > The Task Force chair has already announced that IEEE 802.3av 10GE-PON
> > Draft 1.0 has
> > approved. You can find it in the IEEE task force Web site.
> >
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/index.html
> >
> > But in the specification table in Clause 91, describing PHY layer, several
> > columns
> > still remain as TBD, and continuous efforts are necessary to fill them up.
> >
> > Transmitter and Dispersion Penalty, TDP, is one of such parameters which
> > defines
> > transmitter features. To determine the parameter, it seems that the
> > spread sheet
> > tool does not fully describe the parameter and it should be defined
> > reflecting
> > the transmitter production results.
> >
> > I have submitted a presentation material 3av_0711_hamano_1.pdf about TDP
> > numbers,
> > which may be used in the table, estimated from the current 10G transmitter
> > production
> > results. They are 1.5dB for Downstream EML, in OLT and 3.0dB for Upstream
> > DML in ONU.
> >
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_hamano_1.pdf
> >
> > Some system vendor engineers support my TDP numbers, but I would like to
> > ask more
> > opinions widely for TDP specification and numbers to be adopted for
> > 10GE-PON standard.
> > Especially opinions from optics experts and transceiver manufacturers are
> > highly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > To overcome PR30; 29dB channel insertion loss, a high-power transmitter
> > should be
> > deployed. But such a high-power uncooled DML for Upstream, with minimum
> > output power
> > of +4dBm, does not exist yet and may take years to be developed for
> > mass-production,
> > and its performance estimation is not easy today. But I believe that at
> > least equal
> > or better TDP feature, than current 10G DML with up to 0dBm power, should
> > be available
> > to achieve the PR30 crucial power budget.
> >
> > If you agree my TDP numbers, would you please show your approval for my
> > material??
> > If you have any other suggestion, not only for numbers, but for
> > definitions or
> > procedures, would you please show your preference??
> > Since the draft comment deadline is settled 17. Dec., I would like to have
> > your
> > quick response by the end of November.
> > Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hiroshi Hamano
> > Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
> >
> > %% Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@TEKNOVUS.COM>
> > %% [8023-10GEPON] November 2007 meeting report
> > %% Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:24:10 -0800
> >
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > All November meeting materials have been updated and uploaded to the
> > web. Please see http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/index.html .
> > >
> > > Below is a short overview of the main achievements.
> > >
> > > 1) We accepted several important baseline proposals (refer to minutes in
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_minutes_unapproved.pdf
> > )
> > > a) Adopted power budgets (see Motion 3)
> > > b) Selected remaining wavelength bands (see Motion 4)
> > > c) Selected FEC based on RS(255,223,8) (see Motion 7)
> > > d) Adopted MPCP-based handshake to allow adjustable laser on/off
> > times (see Motion 10)
> > >
> > > 2) We approved the updated version (v2.1) of our Link Model spreadsheet
> > (see Motion 9). The spreadsheet is located at
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/tools/3av_0711_linkmodel_v2_1.xls.
> > >
> > > 3) We adopted power budget and PMD names (see Motions 5 and 6)
> > > 4) We approved draft 1.0 (!)(see Motion 11)
> > > 5) We approved project timeline (see Motion 12)
> > >
> > > As a group exercise, on Thursday the task force has spent several hours
> > commenting on draft 1.0 and resolving submitted comments. A total of 6
> > comments were submitted and reviewed. Reports on proposed responses and on
> > accepted responses are published here:
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_responses_proposed.pdf
> > >
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2007_11/3av_0711_responses_accepted.pdf
> > >
> > > These changes will be incorporated in draft 1.1 after the January
> > meeting. The editors continue to accept comments against D1.0 . Comment
> > submission period ends December 17th, 2007 (a separate e-mail on this will
> > follow).
> > >
> > > The following action items were identified for the January meeting:
> > >
> > > 1) Burst mode timing study (AGC, CDR) (contact Haim Ben-Amram)
> > > 2) Define TDP values (contact Hiroshi Hamano)
> > > 3) Jitter Budgets Reference Model (contact Vijay Pathak)
> > > 4) PRX30 Upstream power budget (contact Marek Hajduczenia)
> > > 5) Synchronization FSM (contact Frank Effenberger)
> > > 6) BER monitoring (contact Jeff Mandin)
> > > 7) Link fault Signaling (contact Jeff Mandin)
> > > 8) PCS diagnostic modes (contact Jeff Mandin)
> > > 9) Coexistence clause/annex (model description, layering diagram,
> > dual-rate burst-mode receiver) (ad hoc leader wanted)
> > >
> > > The individuals noted as contacts agreed to coordinate the corresponding
> > ad hoc activities. If you are interested in participating in any of these ad
> > hoc groups, please contact corresponding coordinator.
> > >
> > > I would like to thank all TF members who attended the November meeting
> > and made it a very productive event. Authors, please remember to check the
> > uploaded presentations to make sure that the final (as presented) version
> > was uploaded.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks you,
> > > Glen Kramer, P802.3av task force chair
> > >
> > >
---
-----------------------------------------
Hiroshi Hamano
Network Systems Labs., Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
Phone:+81-44-754-2641 Fax.+81-44-754-2640
E-mail:hamano.hiroshi@jp.fujitsu.com
-----------------------------------------
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Hajduczenia;Marek
FN:Hajduczenia, Marek
ORG:SN D1/SN;SN D1 R
TITLE:Bolseiro
NOTE:PT/LIS I/SN D1/PT101084
TEL;WORK;VOICE:+351 (21) 416-7472
ADR;WORK:;ED. 1 / Piso 1;Rua Irmaos Siemens, 1;LIS I;;2720-093;Portugal
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:ED. 1 / Piso 1=0D=0ARua Irmaos Siemens, 1=0D=0ALIS I 2720-093=0D=0APortugal
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:marek.hajduczenia@siemens.com
REV:20070221T085034Z
END:VCARD