Re: Joel's Presentation
Joel,
Calm down! The work you presented is excellent and you could not have done a
better job based on the information you had at the time of your analysis. The
8B/10B-based XAUI/XGXS is a complete proposal into which a lot of work went.
When this work is challenged by a proposal which has not even been aired
(SLP-based XAUI/XGXS) I have to defend the proposal that my company and at least
23 others endorse in a professional manner. My defensive strategy is as follows:
1) Build my own SLP-based XAUI/XGXS proposal, since none exists, to enable
apples-to-apple comparison to the 8B/10B-based XAUI/XGXS proposal. SLP
proponents should feel free to optimize it, but it must be complete and meet all
XAUI/XGXS requirements;
2) Compare the two proposals with actual data and Idle sequences over various
physical interconnects such as various PCB trace lengths, # of vias and with and
without one or more connectors. The comparisons should analyze the eyes at the
receivers and Idle spectrums.
I have no hidden agendas and am very eager to see if SLP or any other coding is
better than 8B/10B for XAUI/XGXS. If the competing coding ends up being superior
to 8B/10B overall considering all XAUI/XGXS criteria, then I'll be the first to
endorse it.
So lets all chill out and ensure that any evaluation is performed in a fair and
ethical manner.
It is NOT fair to compare an 8B/10B Idle spectrum which doesn't even match the
proposed XAUI/XGXS Idle pattern to pure scrambled data, since this would not
correspond to an SLP-based XAUI/XGXS Idle spectrum and the SLP Idle spectrum may
actually be much worse than that of the 8B/10B.
I apologize for using the word irrelevant with respect to your presentation.
However, it is certainly not fair for anyone to portray your presentation
results as being representative of eye and EMI characteristics of 8B/10B vs. SLP
for XAUI/XGXS.
I also stand behind supporting a data rate as slow as possible yet gets the job
done. If this means that the data rate must be higher to gain other advantages
which more than mitigate the data rate overhead, then so be it.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Joel Goergen wrote:
>
> Having just down loaded my email and I will address Rich's questioning
> of my data as irrelevant.
>
> Until I calm down and respond in a civil manor, I stand behind
> presentation, I stand behind my EMI comments, and I stand behind
> supporting a data rate as slow as possible yet gets the job done.
>
> I will comment in detail before Monday AM.
>
> Joel
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com