Re: [BP] Presentation
Charles,
I am quite amused.
First, I understand your comments regarding the Tx energy, however, we
are talking about an informative channel model, not a Tx specification.
I think the Tyco Case #7 is an excellent example of the sort of things
that we find bothersome. It meets the specifications as we have them
currently in place, but there are issues, and I would say Howard's
approach of extending the frequency range can be a further way to filter
channels, and should be considered.
You know I have issues with Frankenstein channels. Rich has some
concerns as well, especially when conditions are created that appear to
be failing from the beginning. Marginal channels should be considered
not failing channels.
As I said before my key point of the presentation was to note that the
ATCA channel data provided really isn't for ATCA because of the 2nd FEXT
aggressor.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Moore [mailto:charles.moore@avagotech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:45 AM
To: DAmbrosia, John F
Cc: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [BP] Presentation
john,
I guess that it amounts to a question of clarification. The
"Frankenstein" channels are an attempt to probe the boundaries of
the channel spec. If they indicate that there could be channels
which pass spec but will not work with any reasonable transceiver
pair it may be a good idea to change the spec. If we are going to
change the spec i do not want it to come in through the back door,
i want it fully discussed first. Whether we are discussing changing
the spec is what i want clarified.
If we are discussing changing the spec, i will say that i
am not too happy with extending the frequency range for the spec
to 10.3125GHz, where there is no energy coming out of the Tx and
where most channels near the edge of spec will have negligible gain.
When i look at the roll off of the sinc(pi*T*f) function, speed
limitations of the Tx, and the Rx, i think that any spec which
relies on characteristics above 0.7*Fs (eg 7.2GHz) is likely to
give unreliable results.
charles
DAmbrosia, John F wrote:
> Charles,
> That is correct. Is your question one of clarification? I believe
> these limits are still fair game to comment on, given the on-going EIT
> work and the subsequent impact it has on the channel models. (Adam -
if
> I am wrong, please correct me.)
>
> Howard did some good work, and with the exception of changing the Amax
> equation to a fit of data as opposed to its current basis on material
> properties provided by Joel, I am open-minded to the stuff he has
still
> proposed. True, it will put more burden on the channel
implementation,
> but we are suppose to be trying to divvy up the problem, and I would
> state provide an informative model where false positives are limited.
>
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Moore [mailto:charles.moore@avagotech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:29 AM
> To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [BP] Presentation
>
> john,
>
> I notice in your supporting slides that most of your comparisons
> are to baumer_03_06. I do not recall that we voted to include those
> specs into D2.4
>
> charles
>
> DAmbrosia, John F wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>I forwarded a thread to the reflector regarding issues with the ATCA
>>channel data we had. This and other channel related issues that Rich
>>and I have come across are shown in the following -
>>
>>___http://ieee802.org/3/ap/public/reference/dambrosia_r1_0306.pdf_
>>
>>Cheers!
>>
>>John D'Ambrosia
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Charles Moore
| Avago Technologies
| ISD
| charles.moore@avagotech.com
| (970) 288-4561
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|