Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44

[Seiji Kozaki <Kozaki.Seiji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tibi-san,

Thank you for your response.
Now, we got a common understanding about this issue as below:
"We disagree with removal of the "p-p" from the units for any elements 
of jitter".

Regards,
S.Kozaki


Tibi Galambos さんは書きました:
> Dear Kozaki-san and Hamano-san
>
> Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. As long as the BER is specified, I do agree that the units can in a certain sense be UIp-p, and if that is the customary I have no objection at it. As long as we all agree that the mathematical model (for Rj and Tj) behind it is an unbounded distribution and the "p-p" value is defined by the probability (BER).
>
> What I certainly can not agree is the removal of the "p-p" from the units for Dj.
> So whether the "p-p" is left in or not for Rj and Tj it is fine with me.
>
> Thanks for your attention,
>                             Tibi 
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seiji Kozaki [mailto:Kozaki.Seiji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sun 6/7/2009 6:29 PM
> To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44
>  
> Tibi-san, and all
>
> I agree with Hamano-san's opinion.
> In the meeting of Sept/2008, TF defined Rj value in UIp-p,
> which is calculated by using RMS value.
> Thus, the unit of specifications for Tj and Rj are should be UIp-p.
>
> Regards,
> Seiji Kozaki
>
>
> Hiroshi Hamano ????????:
>   
> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------
> >   
> >