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

RE: OMA vs. OMA/2 poll




Serial PMDers:

I prefer option a). However, as I state in my D3.0 comments, the OMA concept
continues to have problems in referencing an optical power budget for link
analysis.

Regards,
Del Hanson

-----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/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