| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi, Brad, I acknowledge that the reach objectives were adjusted during the task force stage. As was stated by others in another email to the reflector, the study group proposed a reach objective in length which was subsequently
changed in task force. My point was only that there is a reach objective today in 802.3bj which is stated in insertion loss.
-k Kent Lusted
From: Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Brad_Booth@xxxxxxxx]
Kent, The .3bj reach objectives were adjusted during the task force phase of the project after having a large amount of data presented on channels. If this study group had to wait for that level of information to be presented and agreed upon, then developing an objective based upon loss would take a significantly long time. I spoke against using loss especially after watching John D’Ambrosia having to defend using loss for .3bj. Cheers, Brad From: Lusted, Kent C
[mailto:kent.c.lusted@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi, Mehmet and Marek, For what it is worth, the IEEE 802.3bj reach objectives for 100GBASE-KR4 and 100GBASE-KP4 PHYs are stated in loss terms, not a physical length, due to the various permutations of materials, connectors, trace
geometries, etc. For example, there is “define a 4 lane PHY for operation over a printed circuit board backplane with a total channel insertion loss of <= 35 dB at 12.9 GHz.” The full list of objectives is located at:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bj/objectives_0312.pdf With regards, -Kent Kent Lusted
From: Mehmet Tazebay
[mailto:mtazebay@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Dear Marek, Thank you for your quick comments. Here is my response to some of the points that you’ve made
1.
The objective (e) was intended to go with (g) but since we are considering to remove it then, we need to provide a cable reach for automotive environment and industrial environment (as suggested by
Brad)
2.
The dB requirement in (g) was intended to make it independent of the topology which is not clear at the moment. In principal, I agree that we should provide the distance goal.
3.
(h) is a place holder for now. It was in the original text “faster than 1000BASE-T” but the proposed requirement is much faster. I expect to have some clarification after the wake-up requirement presentation
in July-2012 plenary. Then, this goal will have proper wording.
4.
(i) was discussed yesterday. This is also a generic objective as the requirement on energy efficient operation is not clear yet. We need to have a discussion whether 802.3xx protocol will meet the requirement
for RTPGE or not.
5.
There are currently different EMC requirements for different OEMS. In my humble opinion, we need to see a unified requirement which, I believe, is being collected to be presented to the study group.
Therefore, I’d like to keep this under discussion. Many thanks for your inputs. Regards, -Mehmet From: Marek Hajduczenia
[mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Dear Mehmet and colleagues, Even though I have not been attending the calls (sorry, overlap with other activities), I have some thoughts on the objectives, wording and what is still missing. I attach the file with some embedded comments.
Hope that helps Regards Marek From: Mehmet Tazebay
[mailto:mtazebay@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your participation to yesterday’s Telco. It was very productive with lots of good discussion. Please find the attached RTPGE preliminary objectives with the group’s feedback.
I welcome the inputs and further discussions on the reflector. Regards, -Mehmet |