Here are highlights from the TP2 call on 9/16. Thanks to
Bharath Jagannathan for taking detailed notes. In the interest of time, and
to stay at a high level for the upcoming Ottawa meeting, I have trimmed
them down. So if I have missed any important points, please send comments or
corrections as needed. Sorry they are late!
Attendees (no order)
- Greg LeCheminant, Agilent
- Nick Weiner, Phyworks
- John Jaeger, BigBear
- Lew Aronson, Finisar
- Piers Dawe, Agilent
- Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
- Norm Swenson, ClariPhy
- Dubravko Babic, for ClariPhy
- John Ewen, JDSU
- Matt Traverso, Opnext
- Martin Lobel, Intel
- Paul Kolesar, Systimax
- Jan Peeters Weem, Intel
- Bharath Jagannathan, ClariPhy
- Bala Mayampurath, Vitesse
- Premont Miao, Analog Devices
- Jonathan King, BigBear
- John Jaeger, BigBear
- Sudeep Bhoja, BigBear
- Others? Please let me know.
Summary objective (repeated
from before)
Present a proposal for TP2 signaling parameters and associated conformance
testing at the September Meeting. The work must consider and provide tradeoff
information among component cost, test cost, and power penalties.
Reduction in power may be another outcome to consider.
Housekeeping
- Verbal agenda was approved.
- No comments or changes to the previous notes (from 9/9 call).
Progress, technical
discussions
General test objectives -
discussion
-
Tom - TDP
tests with physical multi mode fibers will have a lot of variability and
hence TDP may not work for LRM. The quality
of TDP tests depend on the quality of the reference transmitter, with better
equipment resulting in lower absolute penalties. EDC
technology is new and there is no standard implementation of the receiver
that can be recommended today. The proposed plan uses
SW to emulate fibers, the reference transmitter, and a standard EDC or
metric to avoid these limitations.
-
Tom -
one of the proposed concepts is that the output requirements at
TP3 should be aligned to the input requirements at TP3. A mask test has
indirect bearing on performance at TP3.
-
Lew - if we move away from the eye mask will be there
a “quick and dirty” way of looking at the TP2 waveform and determine if it
is good or bad? This can be done with the eye mask and is a good day to day
practical analysis.
-
Nick - need to validate “Mask is insufficient”
argument before spending time on looking for alternatives. Some arguments
can be debated, and if a test could be found to account for the 3dB
uncorrectable penalty, then such a test along with the eye mask test could
be sufficient. Can anyone argue emphatically against using the (only) eye
mask test?
-
Lew - the 3dB uncorrectable penalty attributed to the
LR mask was unrealistic. What is
realistic?
-
John - how would the eye mask
test distinguish between correctable and uncorrectable impairments? Due
to EDC, a fundamental difference between LR and LRM is the need for
tests that distinguish between correctable and uncorrectable
impairments.
-
Martin - eye mask will eliminate a lot of
flexibility. Cost will be reduced with
flexibility.
-
Tom - flexibility is good for any standard and a
standard should not over constrain.
-
Martin - this (the proposal) was absolutely the right
way to define
TP2.
-
Piers - can we quantify the
tradeoffs?
-
Conclusion - nothing
specific. Awareness being improved, more study
required.
Categorization of TP2
impairments
Correlated Test Set-Up
-
Tom - 7.5GHz scope shown because of common practice
and to ensure consistency in test set-ups. Norm stated that he used
either a 10GHz or 20GHz scope in his measurements.
-
Piers - recommend that the standard EDC not be
implementation specific, and that something like PIE be used with an
implementation penalty.
-
Jonathan - vertical averaging of the waveform will
translate uncorrelated into slower rise/fall time. Overall impact
should be conservative, so this is probably okay if jitter is not too
high.
-
Piers
- why not just put the TP2 penalty into the budget instead imposing this
penalty on the transmitter?
-
Jonathan - will imposing penalty back on transmitter
have any implications for the dynamic range of the receiver? It shouldn't,
as the increased OMA will still be limited
by OMA_max.
-
Greg - from a test equipment perspective, what was
presented was entirely doable. Work needs to be done, but no new class of
equipment is needed.
Next call,
9/23/04
-
All – Everyone agreed that a call on 9/23 will be
useful. Call would serve as a good “pre-discussion” for
Ottawa. Attendance
- Agenda
- Previous notes (from 9/9)
- Presentations/reviews/consensus?
- TP2 test strategy update, Tom
- TP2 ad hoc report, Tom
- Others?
- Plans/presentations for September meeting
- I plan on presenting some form of the 2 listed above.
- Others?
- Motions?
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:40 AM
Subject: [10GMMF] Reminder for TP2 call, 9/16/04
(today)
Reminder for today's TP2 call.
Proposed agenda
- Attendance
- Agenda
- Previous notes (from 9/9)
- Presentations
- TP2 test strategy, Tom
- Others?
- Plans/presentations for September meeting
- Overview of objectives, status of TP2 ad hoc
- TP2 test strategy
- Others?
- Next call, 9/23?
|