RE: [bp] March Meeting Goals and Request for Presentations
Petre,
This issue was discussed during the meeting, and the group as a whole
decided not to specify card length, because it can vary so much in a real
system environment.
In addition, the card length will have a substantial impact on return loss.
I am not sure you will get to where you want to be.
john
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-blade@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-blade@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Petre
Popescu
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:09 AM
To: Healey, Adam B (Adam)
Cc: stds-802-3-blade@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [bp] March Meeting Goals and Request for Presentations
Hi Adam,
We are working on the channel model for 40" copper traces on FR4 and two
connectors.
For clarification, we propose to define the model as two sets of 4"
copper traces (daughter
cards) and one 32" copper trace on the backplane. Please let me know if
this definition is
what you have in mind.
Thanks, Petre
Petre Popescu
Quake Technologies
Healey, Adam B (Adam) wrote:
>Colleagues:
>
>First, I want to thank you for contributing to the very successful study
group meeting that we held in January. Our next meeting will be during the
IEEE 802 plenary in March, and meeting details may be found at:
>
>http://www.ieee802.org/meeting/index.html
>
>I suggest that you make your hotel reservations as soon as possible since
rooms tend to go fast.
>
>Our main objective for this plenary meeting is to move our documents
through the various stages of the process so we can become a task force.
Our documents (the PAR, five criteria, and the initial list of objectives)
are posted at:
>
>http://ieee802.org/3/bladesg/
>
>Note that I expect the PAR to posted shortly. As a first priority, we will
be responding to comments on these documents. Closely related to this
activity is the resolution of the following isuses:
>
>1. "Consider auto-negotiation"
>
>This objective was adopted by the study group due to the belief that there
is value in automatically negotiating between the 1 and 10Gb/s speeds.
However, this ambiguous wording was chosen because it was not clear whether
the auto-negotiation would be based on clause 28, clause 37, or some new
protocol. The study group needs to clarify this objective. To this end, I
strongly encourage reflector discussion and presentations for the March
meeting which do the following:
>(a) justify the need for auto-negotiation
>(b) recommend a signaling scheme and protocol (clause 28, clause 37, or
other)
>(c) propose an action that the Study Group can take to resolve this issue
(i.e. modify an objective)
>
>2. BER objective
>
>There has been some reflector discussion related to the BER objective of
better than 1E-12. Again, discussion and presentations are encouraged that
state an action that can be taken by the SG and justification for the
action. In this case, it would appear that justification would include a
discussion of the system requirements, and a description of a credible means
to verify a more aggressive BER specification.
>
>I strongly encourage you to voice other comments on the study group
documents (which includes the objectives) on the study group reflector.
>
>We will then use the balance of the meeting to discuss proposals on how we
might satisfy the objectives. To this end, I also encourage presentations
to address the following:
>1. Channel model to describe 40" copper traces on FR-4 with 2 connectors
>2. Signaling proposals that satisfy the stated objectives (1 and 10Gb/s)
>3. PCS layer proposals (clause 36, clause 49, other?)
>etc.
>
>Presentations must be submitted in accordance to the "Procedures for
Presenters" which may be found at:
>
>http://ieee802.org/3/bladesg/presentproc.html
>
>Presentation requests and materials are due to me by March 10, although
earlier submissions are appreciated.
>
>I look forward to seeing you in Florida.
>
>Thank you,
>Adam Healey
>
>Chair, Backplane Ethernet Study Group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>