Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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.
>