Re: [8023-10GEPON] Burst mode ad -hoc Starting presentation
Dear Dr. Effenberger,
This is Takeshi Nagahori, NEC, a member of Burst Mode Timing Adhoc.
I agree with your Initial Discussion Document in general, but I have some comment.
I agree with Historical Perspective on ITU side.
On Suggested path forward, I agree the importance of reference design on
both loose timing and tight timing, but the proposed timing value example
is tight referred to the presentation on January meeting.
Following is my alternative proposal.
loose timing: treceiver_settling + tcdr = 800ns (without any reset signal, LIM-CDR AC coupling)
tight timing: treceiver_settling + tcdr = 200ns (with burst enable/reset signal from other layer)
On broadcast of burst-mode overhead requirements, the same function
is already defined at 802.3ah in GATE MPCPDU (Clause 64.3.6.1), as you know.
So we need no change, unless rise-time control is newly defined.
On rise-time control, anyone believes that the faster the better on
envelope of upstream optical waveform. The reason why rise-time control
is needed will be explained in detail.
Finally I must apologies for my delayed reply.
Best Regards,
Takeshi Nagahori
NEC
t-nagahori@ah.jp.nec.com
>Dear All,
>
>
>
>I was supposed to get a discussion going on burst mode timing.
>
>As I¡¯ve done in the past, I¡¯ve put together my initial thoughts on paper,
>just to stimulate things.
>
>See the attached slides.
>
>
>
>If anybody has any comments, please let us hear them.
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Dr. Frank J. Effenberger ¸¥À¼¿Ë °£·Ò²©¸ñ
>
>Huawei Technologies USA
>
>1700 Alma Drive, Plano TX 75075
>
>Cell (908) 670 3889
>
>Office/Home (732) 625 3001
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
’·–x@„
t-nagahori@ah.jp.nec.com
“ú–{“d‹C(Š”) ŒõƒfƒoƒCƒXŽ–‹Æ•” ‘æ“ñ¤•iŠJ”ƒOƒ‹[ƒv
§270-1198 ç—tŒ§‰ä‘·ŽqŽs“ú‚Ìo1131
ŽÐ“àƒ[ƒ‹: 26-52801
TEL: 04-7181-8738i“àü8-26-76324j
FAX: 04-7185-7926i“àü8-26-57926j
-----------------------------------------------------