Re: [8023-10GEPON] Optical Overload Ad-hoc - the issue of damage thresholds
Dear Hamano-san,
I think we can have this discussion when processing Your comment at the meeting. I believe we have the agreement in here already and the exact wording still needs to be presented to the group. I acknowledge Your argument on indicating "what should not and what should be done" as valid. Let's leave the discussions on the exact wording to the comment resolution phase. It will be simpler then. Now we will come up with a solution which may be subject to rewording later on any way
Best wishes
Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A.
System Architect – 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+351.21.424.2337
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Hiroshi Hamano [mailto:hamano.hiroshi@jp.fujitsu.com]
Sent: terça-feira, 8 de Abril de 2008 10:17
To: Hajduczenia, Marek (NSN - PT/Portugal - MiniMD); STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Optical Overload Ad-hoc - the issue of damage thresholds
Dear Dr. Effenberger and Dr. Hajduczenia,
As you have already noticed that I have submitted comments about this
notification text and location suggestion in the draft.
If 'Damage threshold' will be deleted from the specification table, my text
can be revised, for example, as follows,
'10GBASE-PR and 10/1GBASE-PRX do not guarantee the direct ONU-OLT
connection, which may result in damage of the receiver. If direct ONU-OLT
connection is necessary, optical attenuators and/or equivalent loss components
should be inserted to decrease receive power below average receive power (max).'
Current text about damage threshold in 91.4.2 and 91.5.2 ('Either the damage
threshold included in …') can be replaced by the notification.
I do not stick to my text above at all, if similar context will be included
in the notification. But I want to keep the second paragraph,
attenuator insertion recommendation, to indicate readers/users not only
'what should not do', but also 'what should do', and to make them more sensible.
Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
%% "Hajduczenia, Marek (NSN - PT/Portugal - MiniMD)" <marek.hajduczenia@NSN.COM>
%% Re: [8023-10GEPON] Optical Overload Ad-hoc - the issue of damage thresholds
%% Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:03:15 +0100
> Frank,
> If I read You right, what You propose is as follows:
> 1. remove the overload rows from the PMD tables in clause 91
> 2. add a general warning text that one might burn a hole in the OLT provided one is not careful ?
> If that is a plan, I would like to indicate there are comments covering this issue (see http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2008_04/3av_0804_comments_d1_2_received.pdf) - comment #1207.
> I would like to support the locations You propose - they seem to be correct and we may approve the proposed text and its location as part of the resolution of this comment.
> Regarding the rewording ...
> Text 1 - "Note - the maximum receiver input power is lower than the corresponding maximum transmitter power. For this reason, back-to-back connection of the transmitter and receiver is not recommended, and may in fact damage the receiver."
> To be placed immediately after the first paragraph of 91.4.2 and 91.5.2
> Text 2 - "Note - the presented loss budgets have a required, non-zero minimum channel insertion loss. This precludes back-to-back connection of the U-type and D-type PMDs. Such a connection, if effected, may cause permanent damage to the receiver."
> I do not believe a Tx would be damaged. It will just burn a hole in the Rx and that is all ...
> To be placed immediately after the introductory paragraph in 91.6.
> How does that look ?
> BR
>
> Marek Hajduczenia (141238)
> NOKIA SIEMENS Networks S.A.
> System Architect - COO BBA DSLAM R&D
>
> Rua Irm竢s Siemens, 1, Ed. 1, Piso 1
> Alfragide, 2720-093 Amadora, Portugal
>
> * marek.hajduczenia@nsn.com
> (+351.21.416.7472 4+351.21.424.2337
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext EffenbergerFrank 73695 [mailto:feffenberger@HUAWEI.COM]
> Sent: ter艨-feira, 8 de Abril de 2008 2:40
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Optical Overload Ad-hoc - the issue of damage thresholds
>
> Dear All,
>
> Since I didn't hear any wild screams of pain, let's go forward assuming that we will remove the optical damage line items in the tables for 10G.
>
> Now, the next topic is where to put a warning about direct connection.
> One place would be just before the receiver tables. Candidate text:
> "Note that the maximum receiver input power is less then than the corresponding maximum transmitter power. For this reason, back to back connection is not recommended, and may in fact cause damage."
>
> Another would be some text near the table that describes the link loss.
> "Note that the loss budgets have a minimum loss that is greater than zero. This precludes back to back connection of the PMDs. Additionally, such connection may cause permanent damage to the components."
>
> Or something like that... I warmly invite anybody to tune up the language.
>
> Sincerely,
> Frank E.
>
>
---
-----------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------