Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Matt, I meant a decrease of course
J The lower ref Rx bandwidth is the direct consequence of switching to a T spaced EQ, and does a nice job of matching the ref Rx with anticipated Rx implementations. Increasing TDECQ is a direct consequence of the lower reference bandwidth. A ‘real’ transmitter and receiver that passed D3.1 TDECQ definition will still pass D 3.2 TEDCQ provided that TDECQ increases by 0.9 dB. Unstressed receiver sensitivity (defined for a transmitter SECQ = 0 dB) should decrease by 0.9 dB.
This leaves the min Tx OMA at max TDECQ at the same OMA (i.e. no change to the ‘real’ Tx), no change to the SRS test source in terms of applied stress (because D3.2 reference bandwidth means that the SECQ of the SRS test source will increase by 0.9 dB without
changing it’s stress conditions), and so no change to the SRS test OMA. For example (made up numbers) The TDECQ spec would increase by 0.9 dB, eg from 2.5 dB to 3.4 dB. The OMA minus TDECQ spec would decrease, eg from -1.5dB to -2.4 dB. SECQ would move in line with TDECQ, ie from 2.5 dB to 3.4 dB. For the receiver sensitivity (informative) spec, we have choices either remove it (it isn’t an operating condition the receiver would ever see for a compliant Tx and link, and it’s meaningless for an equalized system anyway),
or lower the spec value by 0.9 dB and say it’s for a 0 dB SECQ test source, or keep it the same and say it’s defined for a 0.9 dB SECQ test source Hope this helps. jonathan From: Matt Traverso (mattrave) [mailto:mattrave@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi Jonathan, I’m sorry to have missed the most recent ad hoc where you presented
king_01a_0617_smf. I find myself confused as to what you mean by: “a similar decrease in the OMAouterminus TDECQ spec”. Can you show an example with what would happen for the TX or RX table for any of the clause 122 PMD’s? I think this all stems from a mixing of terms increase/decrease with negative numbers… Thanks --matt
From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi, As previously announced, there is an SMF Ad Hoc meeting starting at 8:00 am Pacific today, Tuesday 13 June. Attendees names and affiliations will be taken from the Webex participants list. Please use an e-mail address indicating affiliation when signing in. If you attend via phone only, or if your employer and affiliation are
different, please send me an e-mail. I currently have requests for 1 presentation so the draft agenda is:
o
TDECQ changes and consequent spec limits Jonathan King, Finisar
The presentation for this call is on the P802.3bs
SMF Ad Hoc web page. If you have any questions for the presenter(s) after the call, please ask the Ad Hoc Chair for contact details. Peter Anslow from Ciena has invited you to join a meeting on the Web, using WebEx. Please join the meeting 5-10 minutes early so we may begin on time.
+44-203-4333547 (United Kingdom)
4438636577 (United States) 2064450056 (Canada) 4006920013 (China) Regards, Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor |