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