Re: [10GMMF] Reminder for TP2 call 7/12/05
Please remove me from your reflector ASAP.
Thanks,
Jyn-Bang Shyu
--- Tom Lindsay <tom.lindsay@CLARIPHY.COM> wrote:
> a.. Date: Tuesday, 12 July, 2005
> b.. Time: 9:00 AM Pacific
> c.. Duration: 1:30 max
> d.. Number: 401-694-1515
> e.. Access code: 421721#
> Agenda
> a.. Attendance
> b.. Review previous minutes (thanks, Mike)
> c.. Build agenda
> d.. Technical discussions
> a.. Vivek - correlation among EQ lengths
> b.. ClariPhy - TBD
> c.. Finisar - TWDP on TP3 setups?
> d.. Conclusions before meeting?
> e.. Next call
>
> Tom Lindsay
> ClariPhy Communications
> tom.lindsay@clariphy.com
> phone: (425) 608-0209 or (949) 480-9210
> cell: (206) 790-3240
> fax: (425) 608-0232
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Dudek
> To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:43 PM
> Subject: [10GMMF] Minutes for TP2 call 7/5/05
>
>
> Attendance (no order)
> a.. Lew Aronson
> b.. David Cunningham
> c.. Ernie Bergmann
> d.. Piers Dawe
> e.. Mike Dudek
> f.. Majid Barazande-Pour
> g.. Norm Swenson
>
> Agenda
> a.. Attendance (done, see above)
> b.. Build agenda (done)
> c.. Technical discussions (see below)
> d.. Next call (see below)
> Mike Dudek moderated the call in Tom Lindsay's
> absence.
>
>
> Discussion (TWDP)
>
> a.. Further discussion took place on the
> comparison metrics of SNR, TWDP, and implementation
> penalty (IP) with finite length EQ that Tom had
> presented last week. See
>
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/public/upload/AnalysisofSNR_TWDPandfinitelengthIPvs.measuredwaveforms.pdf.
>
> a.. Norm Swenson described work that he had
> performed to attempt to evaluate whether the TWDP
> degradations seen for practical waveforms was
> related to non-linearities or other factors. Early
> results showed that the TWDP was reduced by 0.2 to
> 0.5dB for best linear fits to a selection of the
> waveforms from Tom's presentation. He sent a graph
> of these early results to the reflector (based on
> Ewen 4.6dB pre-cursor stressor). He intends to
> present more results next week.
> b.. Concern was again expressed that Tom's
> presentation showed that when normalized to OMSD
> only parts with significant pre-emphasis had lower
> TWDP than the supposedly worst case 47ps Gaussian
> pulse, and that we need to make sure that
> "reasonable practical" Tx's will pass the test. ie
> we may need to allocate some of the implementation
> penalty to the Tx if we use this normalization
> method.
> b.. Lew Aronson suggested that practical TP3
> stressed eye testers may overstress the Rx and said
> that he was going to be performing TWDP like tests
> on his tester.
> a.. David Cunningham stated that he had
> measured Pie-D on some commercially available BERTS
> and found that they had 0.2 - 0.5dB penalty not all
> of which was related to rise/fall times. This
> indicates that making a perfect TP3 stressor will
> not be easy.
> b.. Mike Dudek suggested that we will have to
> determine what to do when the waveforms have been
> matched as well as possible to the pulse shapes in
> the standard and the TWDP like test of the resulting
> waveform does not match the expected TWDP like
> result. He suggested that there are 3 choices with
> the noted advantages/disadvantages.
> a.. 1 Just state that test implementers
> need to minimize the difference and that the
> difference will result in conservative results.
> (similar to what is said about noise in the 10G
> 802.3ae standard for the stressed receiver
> sensitivity testing). Not recommended based on
> experience with the 10G stressed eye testers.
> b.. 2 Say that any difference in TWDP
> should be used as a correction factor for the
> stressed sensitivity. This is still probably
> conservative as it is likely to result in more
> distortion to equalize but with somewhat higher
> input power. It is however relatively easy to
> incorporate into the standard.
> c.. 3 Say that the waveshapes should be
> adjusted to create the required TWDP. Probably the
> fairest test for the receivers, but may be difficult
> to state in the standard how to do this.
> c.. It was also suggested that it would be
> useful to have a name for the "TWDP like test" (ie
> test of TP3 signal with TWDP like code without the
> simulated fibers) to more easily differentiate this
> test.
> Next week
> a.. Tom will be back
> b.. Vivek planning to present on correlation
> across EQ lengths (action from 6/23). (Hopefully
> this will take place. Vivek was not on the call to
> confirm).
> c.. Norm Swenson planning to present more
> information on his analysis of the TWDP results from
> the various eyes.
> d.. Lew Aronson planning to present
> information on TWDP like measurements on a TP3
> stressed tester with comparison to theory.
> e.. Requests for new sims
> a.. ~0/30/60 psec Gaussian with pre/post,
> long/short EQs, normalized with OMSD/OMA. Show SNR,
> TWDP, and IP. (Carried forward from 6/28 call)
> b.. Other IP mechanisms.
> f.. Reminder this will be the last day for
> comments to rev 2.1
>
> Next call
> a.. Date: Tuesday, 12 July, 2005
> b.. Time: 9:00 AM Pacific
> c.. Duration: 1:30 max
> d.. Number: 401-694-1515
> e.. Access code: 421721#
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Dudek
> Director Transceiver Engineering
> Picolight Inc
> 4663 Nautilus Court South
> Boulder
> CO 80301
> Tel 303 530 3189 X7533.
>