Thank you for consideration of the dynamic
test discussion slated for the next teleconference on December 21. A
contibution is forthcoming, but will not be ready until the about the second
week in January. I request postponement of this topic until then.
Have a great holiday break.
Paul Kolesar
Michael Lawton <mike_lawton@AGILENT.COM> Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@ieee.org
12/16/2004 05:15 AM
Please respond to
"IEEE P802.3aq 10GBASE-LRM" <stds-802-3-10gmmf@ieee.org>
To
STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
cc
Subject
[10GMMF] TP3 call Meeting Minutes Dec
14
Dear TP3ers
Here are my notes from our last Meeting ...
Please let me know of any ommissions/corrections.
Best Regards
Mike
Agenda
------
1. List attendees
Aronson, Lew
Bhoja, Sudeep
Dawe, Piers
Everett, Keith
Hanberg, Jesper
Kolesar, Paul
Lawton, Mike
Lindsay, Tom
Lingle, Rob
McVey, Jim
Popescu, Petre
Weiner, Nick
Willcocks, Ben
Witt, Kevin
2. Review notes from last meeting
No comments
2a Transfer of Chairmanship.
Mike explained how he is taking up a new role in Agilent and that he can
no longer chair the TP3 group. Agilent will remain a key contributor to
the group with attendance from Piers Dawe and others. I am delighted to
say that Jim McVey of Finisar has agreed to take on the role of chairing
the group. Jim's leadership, combined with his technical knowledge will
be very powerful in helping the group to progress. Mike's last meeting
will be Dec 21, and Jim will start in the New Year with our Jan 4 meeeting.
Sudeep presented a method for sorting IPRs into three categories (pre/post-cursor
and symmetric). He has used an automatic technique which calculates the
"center of gravity" for the IPR and compares it's location with
respect to the largest peak.
There was a good deal of discussion on the details of Sudeeps choices.
The results of Sudeeps algorithm show that he is clearly able to select
example pre/post cursor and symmetrical impulses. However in the process
of the reducing the number of IPRs there are clearly some fairly arbitrary
choices which need to be made.
2 key questions came out of Sudeeps choices:-
i) is it valid to have such a narrow window
for selecting pre and post (ie. the -15%+/-3% and +20+/-3%) and discard
the others?, and are the %'s somewhat arbitrary?
ii) do we capture a symmetrical split impulse
response in the symmetric group
To address i) Lew made the suggestion that we use a metric relating not
to a % of the delay for the largest peak, but instead to use delays normalised
to UI. Sudeep is going to investigate this
For ii) it is true that Sudeeps current technique will not show a split
pulse in the symmetric group. Need to understand the significance, if any,
of this.
4. Overload proposal
Tom presented thinking that at present we have to test for overload conditions
both in the informative sensitivity test and the stressed Rx sensitivity
test. There was some discussion around whether this could be reduced
to a test that would be acceptable. Piers and Tom had views on this and
agreed to keep working on this.
5. Informative Rx Sensitivity Testing
Tom raised a point that we need to check that we are describing the end
condition and not defining implementation choices in the test. This would
lead to us defining a nominal rise time (around 129ps) rather than specifying
a BT filter with a given bandwidth. Piers felt that it was ok as it was
currently written. Piers and Tom agreed to look over it again
5. Review progress against timeline
We need to continue to attempt to remove TBDs in the stressed Rx sensitivity
test. Petre agreed to do some work in the fitting parameters (4,5,6,7 in
Lews flow chart).
Sudeep is going to continue to work on his algorithm for sorting.
January 4 meeting is going to be at least partially taken up with planning
for the comment resolution deadline on Jan 7.
Need a volunteer to look at test procedure and char for Jan 11 meeting.
6. Walk in Items
Paul Kolesar asked for some agenda time to ask questions regarding the
need for a dynamic adaptation test. This will go on next weeks agenda.