Re: [10GMMF] Notes from Sept 7 meeting on TP3 definition
I very much agree with what Vipul and others have said here, and I think
we should consider it seriously. Clearly, the adaptation action of the EDC
can be affected by narrowband interference, and if there is a cost-effective
alternative in the form of a white noise generator I would much rather
see that being used than a sinusoid.
Lars
Vipul Bhatt wrote:
> And there is a broader issue here. Future EDC implementations will use
> more sophisticated methods of exploiting the statistical and spectral
> properties of noise, and may have complex EDC structures. A noise
> compliance test based on a deterministic, single-frequency stressor --
> even if it sort of works today -- may lead to false judgment tomorrow. We
> should avoid creating a spec that people may struggle to design towards,
> and yet will not guarantee interoperability because it strays too far from
> reality. The safest way out is to treat the receiver as a black box and
> feed it inputs that are faithful emulations of signal and noise presented
> by worst case transmitter and channel.
>
> One possible solution: In subclause 68.6.4 of D0.1, replace the sinusoidal
> interferer with a noise generator, 0 to ~10 GHz bandlimited-white,
> Gaussian, as a starting point for further work. It doesn't have to be the
> proven best option; we only need to be convinced sufficiently that it's
> better than all other options at this stage.
>
--
----
Lars E. Thon <lars@aeluros.com>
Aeluros Inc., 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 172
Mountain View, CA 94040-1254
650-917-4113(w) 650-917-7394(f) 408-439-5914(c)