| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mike, Mike, All, Here's an update
to Mike A's spreadsheet with the suggestions by Vivek Telang and myself
that we could use to summarize all the signaling
proposals and their
performance against an agreed upon set of channel
models. As the Task
Force has yet to agree upon the channel model set
the ones listed are only
shown for reference and as an example. The
performance of any of
the proposed signaling methods do not need to be
entered until the final
set of channel models has been agreed upon,
however, if any
supporters for a particular signaling method wish to fill in
any portion of the
spreadsheet prior to a Task Force agreement on the channel model set
they should feel free to do so. Howard Baumer Altmann, Michael W wrote: Mike, To start with, I think that I can state pretty confidently that here is no implementation, coding, or channel bias in this spreadsheet ... mostly because it's almost entirely blank! I have used a worst-case assumption for summarizing the channel performance, because I can only fit so much data on my screeen, and nobody in the group has proposed another metric for summarizing this. If a metric exists, which the group accepts, then I will happily enter it into the spreadsheet. I suggest that the best way to proceed, if this is not an appropiate method of reducing channel BER results, is to propose another complete and unambiguous metric for this comparison which the group can then vote on. .../Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mike-Lerer [mailto:mike@mike-lerer.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:10 AM To: Altmann, Michael W; STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org Subject: RE: [BP] Signaling spread sheet In reviewing the spreadsheet, I believe that you are once again making unreasonable assumptions about the interests of the majority of the task group. If I interpret the spreadsheet correctly, you are characterizing each signaling scheme by its worst performance over any channel. I believe that it is unreasonable to characterize a signaling scheme in this way unless or until the group makes a formal decision that each of the channels falls within its required objectives. As you will recall, at the last face to face meeting several motions were attempted to select channels for use in signaling evaluation, all of the motions failed. Until the group is able to make a definitive statement about which channels are required to be supported, desired to be supported, and merely of interest as anomalous experiments, it is unreasonable to combine all the results into one metric, as you have done. Mike Lerer Box 636 Londonderry, NH 03053 Home: 603-434-4205 Cell: 603-548-3704 -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-3-blade@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-blade@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Altmann, Michael W Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:44 AM To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [BP] Signaling spread sheet Dear IEEE802.3ap TF Members (Signalig ad hoc), Further to our discussions regarding comparison metrics for signaling schemes, I created the first cut of a spreadsheet for coding selection similar to that used by the 10Gbase-T Task force. Comments/critiques are all welcome. I am not planning to discuss this in the signaling ad hoc on 29 October, given it's relative new-ness. Regards. .../Mike <<IEEE Coding Table v3.xls>> |