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

RE: OMA vs. OMA/2 poll




Prefer "a"

jt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kabal [mailto:dkabal@picolight.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:09 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@ieee.org
> 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/m
> sg00228.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
>