| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I have the following proposals. 1) That we categorize channels into 3 categories. à Channels
which the objectives require us to support à Channels
which desireable to support à Channels
which contain anomalies and are relevant to explore signaling margin and
potential issues 2) That the performance be summarized by the following metrics: à Number
of Required Channels Passing at specified BER à Number
of Required Channels Failing at specified BER à Number
of Desired Channels Passing at specified BER à Number
of Desired Channels Failing at specified BER à Number
of Anomalous Channels Passing at specified BER à Number
of Anomalous Channels Failing at specified BER 3) Until we are able to categorize the channels into categories as
above that we summarize the results by those channel's that meet the Channel Ad
Hoc Mask sets. à Number
of Channel Ad Hoc Compliant Channels Passing at specified BER à Number
of Channel Ad Hoc Compliant Channels Failing at specified BER à Number
of Channel Ad Hoc Non-Compliant Channels Passing at specified BER Number of
Channel Ad Hoc Non-Compliant Channels Failing at specified
BER In addition I believe that since time is limited, the signaling Ad Hoc
should only pursue those channels which have met the 802.3ap schedule and have
provided complete proposals. There are two such complete proposals: Proposal for 10G Serial Backplane PHY
Using Unified Signaling http://www.ieee802.org/3/ap/public/sep04/gaither_01_0904.pdf http://www.ieee802.org/3/ap/public/sep04/palkert_02_0904.pdf Proposal for 10Gb/s single-lane PHY
using PAM-4 signaling http://www.ieee802.org/3/ap/public/jul04/brink_02_0704.pdf I do not see a complete proposal for any other 10 gigabit serial
solution. Mike Lerer Chairman Physical Link Layer Working Group of the Optical
Internetworking Forum Chairman Hardware Working Group Network Processing Forum Cell: 603-548-3704 -----Original Message----- 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: 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 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>> |