Re: From serial PMD call, 30 Jan. 01: RIN, TMS. Different phone# thi s week
Hi all,
I had to miss the last weeks call, so maybe you already talked about this.
I would like to urge caution changing the numbers for the RIN, since we are
already proposing including the IN penalty (which will be on the order of
0.4 dB for the longest lengths). We need to make sure that after allocating
all the penalties, we still have positive margin.
I think that measuring the RIN with -12 dB RL is OK since short links are
possible. The question though is how to separate the RIN from the IN
penalty when measuring the RIN with -12 dB RL?
Peter
Petar Pepeljugoski
IBM Research
P.O.Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
e-mail: petarp@us.ibm.com
phone: (914)-945-3761
fax: (914)-945-4134
"DAWE,PIERS (A-England,ex1)" <piers_dawe@agilent.com>@ieee.org on
02/05/2001 07:14:45 AM
Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@ieee.org
To: "'802.3ae Serial'" <stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@ieee.org>
cc:
Subject: From serial PMD call, 30 Jan. 01: RIN, TMS. Different phone# thi
s week
1. Report from editors' meeting
A new set of jitter subclauses was created. This will serve as a straw man
to draw out constructive criticism, having more relevant content than in
the
last draft. There will be three jitter tables in the serial clause, one
for
each wavelength/fibre type.
OMA and triple trade off need more work off line (David Kabal, Mike Dudek,
Peter Öhlén).
MDIO/MDC name mapping tables will be added to relate functions in clauses
45, 52 and 54.
Next draft of the standard is due on 9 February.
2. RIN numbers
We noted that the draft standard has -125 dB/Hz at 850 nm but -130 dB/Hz at
1310 and 1550 nm (all RIN12OMA).
We propose changing two of these so that all three say -125 dB/Hz, giving a
RIN penalty ~0.15 dB. *** Does the readership of this reflector think this
is reasonable? Note, numbers like this should be backed up with
experimental evidence at some point ***
Someone said that measuring RIN with -12 dB reflection was overkill on SMF
because that represents a very short link, with plenty of margin expected.
3. Interferometric Noise
Brief discussion showed increasing agreement on the detail but still no
consensus. Note submissions from Petar and Peter which we hadn't
assimilated at the time of the call.
4. TMS
The timescales and scope of the TMS subject matter do not sit well with
802.3ae. It is now proposed that a set of registers be marked "reserved
for
PHY management services". I understand this would allow for an independent
standardisation effort(s) or commercial agreement(s) which is/are not
formally linked to 802.3ae.
5. Jitter meeting
Discussion of possible meeting 8-9 February. See emails from Bill Reysen.
Next meeting
------------
Same time? *** DIFFERENT *** phone number:
4pm GMT = 8am PST Tuesday 6 February 2001 for an hour and a half -ish
Phone number to be advised
Piers