|
Hi Mike -
As requested, I have made some changes to my 12-Oct presentation to reflect
comments received during the call. Important changes are highlighted in blue (I
also made some other editorial changes). I have not yet updated the slides on
"Part B", as I don't think the values are urgent.
Separately from last week's comments, I added another main bullet to the
last budgeting slide to discuss if we have time.
I will send the new revision for Piers soon.
Another topic would be to continue the discussion about high frequency sine
jitter tolerance - how realistic is it, what is it trying to represent,
should we add it or something else, etc.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:22
AM
Subject: [10GMMF] TP3 OCt 12 meeting
Notes
Dear TP3'ers,
Here are my notes from today's
meeting.
Next Meeting Tuesday October 19th at 9am SJ, 5pm UK, 6pm
Germany
Dial in (650) 599-0374, Meeting ID:
136169
Meeting Notes
-------------
October 12th
1. List
Attendees
Bhoja, Sudeep
Ewen, John
Hanberg, Jesper
Jaeger,
John
Latchman, Ryan
Lawton, Mike
Lindsay, Tom
McVey,
Jim
Pepeljogski, Petar
Peters Weem, Jan
Popescu, Petre
Shanbhag,
Abhijit
Swenson, Norm
Van Schyndel, Andre
Weiner, Nick
Willcocks,
Ben
2. Review meeting notes from last week
No comments given.
Whoops, none asked for either!
3. Review Lew's additional motions
(which were not heard at Ottawa)
This item was postponed to the Oct 19
meeting. Apologies to Lew and Jim, it will be top of the agenda at our next
meeting.
4. Presentation on relating TP2 and TP3 to the link budget
from Tom Lindsay
Tom: Please send in corrections/changes as
appropriate.
In summary Tom had 2 key strands running through his
presentation:-
i) TP2 and
TP3 testing should both be test configurations which seek to represent the
relevant aspects
within
the link budget
ii) Specific
proposals regarding rise times for the reference Tx and PIE-D figures for the
link budget
Separating these two points, the group agreed with point
i). This gives us a framework for which to continue to define our tests -
recognising we do not have all the numbers finally agreed.
For point
ii) the presentation was helpful in supporting a useful discussion, although
more work is necessary.
The group did not conclude on when and how to
progress the budget.
ACTION: Mike and Tom to discuss the when and how
to progress the budget and put forward a proposal.
Piers raised a good
question about Jitter testing. He made the point that the jitter testing
(currently one high frequency test) may represent a very harsh test as the
impairements of the channel will add significant amounts of broadband jitter
on their own. There was much discussion around this. I wont attempt to capture
this but I encourage interested parties to use the reflector to progress the
issue.
Upcoming items of focus (for subsequent
metings):-
i) Review Lew's
outstanding motions
ii) Static channel
methodology
- noise
loading
- channel types and exact
characteristics
o i.e. do we pick pre, post cursor and quasi symmetric and if so where from?
108 fiber model?
iii) OMA measurement
methodology.
Best Regards
Mike
|