Re: OMA vs. OMA/2 poll
Hi all,
I prefer to the OMA definition. Although I think that the OMA/2 is more
suitable for direct link budget analysis, I think that we should stick with
OMA, since it is already in one standard and change in the definition would
introduce confusion.
Peter
Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
e-mail: petarp@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax: (914)-945-4134
David Kabal <dkabal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>@ieee.org on 04/20/2001 03:09:02 PM
Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@xxxxxxxx
To: stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@xxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject: OMA vs. OMA/2 poll
Serial PMDers:
I volunteered to set up an informal poll (based on the lack of
participation
at the last Serial PMD conference call: we lacked quorum) on whether to
specify in Clause 52, for example, Receive Sensitivity for each of the
PMDs,
in OMA or OMA/2.
Background:
Originally, all values in the tables and receive sensitivity were OMA/2. As
of D3.0, we voted to change everything to OMA, but the triple trade off
tables still have both OMA and OMA/2 values listed.
Discussion:
There has been some discussion on this on the reflector, see thread:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/10G_study/public/serial_adhoc/email/msg00228.html
I propose that we have a single solution for all instances in Clause 52.
a) specify everything in OMA
b) specifiy everything in OMA/2
c) specify everything in both (very difficult to read)
Please post your comments and input to the reflector.
Cheers,
Dave
------
David Kabal
Picolight
Phone: 303-530-3189 ext. 272
Fax: 303-527-4968