Dear Dr. Galambos,
As indicated in 3av_0809_kozaki_2.pdf, RJ numbers in the Tables are
not rms, but DJ aligned value to calculate TJ. Even though RJ does
not have the peak-jitter nature, I still think DJ, RJ, and TJ numbers
should all be described in UIp-p.
Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
%% Tibi Galambos <Tibi_Galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
%% [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44
%% Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:49:52 +0300
The proposal for comment #44 is to remove "p-p" from the headers
of tables 75C-1 and 75C-2 altogether. This is not correct.
The "p-p" attribute has to be removed from the TJ and RJ columns
only. The headers of both tables have to look as follows:
Reference point DJ (UI p-p) RJ (UI ) TJ (UI )
Justification:
The jitter budget is built upon the following assumptions:
a. Jitter is represented assuming the DJ to have an equi-probable
bimodal distribution and RJ to be Gausian.
b. All sources of random jitter are assumed independent therefore
RJ rms values can be added by squares.
c. All sources of DJ are assumed to be correlated (this is a worst
case assumption, meaning that all DJ components will be either together
at max value or together at min value, with equal probability for the
min and the max to occur)
Under these assumptions, RJ and TJ are defined @ BER while DJ is
defined by it's peak to peak value and then the following calculation
holds:
TJ (@ BER) = DJ p-p + RJ (@ BER)
Tibi Galambos
Principal Engineer AFE (Analog Front-End)
FTTH BU
PMC-Sierra
Tel: +972-9-9628000 Ext. 473
Email: tibi_galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:itibi_galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
-----------------------------------------
Hiroshi Hamano
Network Systems Labs., Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
Phone:+81-44-754-2641 Fax.+81-44-754-2640
E-mail:hamano.hiroshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------