Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Bill,  I agree that these two sentences are not needed in the definitions of Ton and Toff. But we may want to mention something about the transmitted patterns in the next section covering the test specification for Ton/Toff.  BTW, in C142, we show that during the Ton, ONUs transmit SP1 pattern and during Toff, ONUs transmit EBD (all zeros). For Ton testing, should we use the same patterns or just â??any valid 257-bit blocksâ???  Another question (to the entire group): We are still missing Tcdr definition and measurement method. The starting point for the Tcdr interval is clear from the figure 141-3 â?? it is the point where Trx_settling ends. But how do we define and detect ending point of Tcdr? Right now, in Figure 141-3, the ending point of Tcdr hangs in the air, not anchored to anything.  -Glen  From: Powell, Bill (Nokia - US/Raleigh) [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx]  Copying the discussion to the reflector... Glen, New Fig. 141-3 that you proposed last week: Regards,
 Bill,  I donâ??t mind adding any information to the figure if it clarifies things. But the circled line is wrong.  First, the text you highlighted only refers to the data transmitted during the Ton and Toff measurement tests. It has nothing to do with the last line in the figure, which shows synchronization pattern transitioning into a data pattern. This line was originally included (in clause 60) as an attempt to show how to detect the end time of Tcdr interval. But this line is wrong. The number of sync patterns that ONU generates is a parameter provisioned by management. It always must be larger than the actual Tcdr. The test and the diagram need to show how to measure the actual Tcdr.  Maybe one way to test it is to start with provisioning a small sync pattern length and to slowly keep increasing it until we have no missing bursts in 48 hours. But that requires up to 48-hr wait at each step. We should be discussing this on the reflector.  -Glen  From: Powell, Bill (Nokia - US/Raleigh) [mailto:bill.powell@xxxxxxxxx]  Hey Glen, Your updated Fig. 141-3 that you presented last week looks like this: Fig. 141-3 from D1.5 looks like this: I think we may need to add the line of fig. 141-3 from D1.5 that is circled above (we can leave off the "Grant length" line) to your updated figure since there are additional references to Fig. 141-3 and "the data transmitted" in 141.7.13.1 as highlighted below in yellow. Give me a call if you'd like to discuss...  Regards, cell - 919-614-3225   -------- Forwarded Message --------
 All,  Here are updates/thoughts on action items 12-15:   Action item #12 is related to TBDs in this text:  First, paragraphs 2 and 3 are out of place here. Only paragraphs 1 and 4 should remain. The paragraph 2 should be moved to section 141.7.17 (insert between 141.7.14 and 141.7.14.1 headers). Replace the TBD in this paragraph with 800 ns (based on the contribution from Curtis and Frank that we reviewed today.) I already made this change in Action Item #14 (see below).  Paragraph 3 should be removed from this location. Bill and Ed need to figure out what to do with the Tcdr definition. Clause 142 talks about what ONU transmits during Tcdr time, but never provides any definition of it or measurement methodology. This is the only remaining gap for AI #12. If we need to add an illustration of Tcdr measurement to Figure 141-3, let me know.  Action Item #13 is related to this text: The â??Figure <TBD>â?? is resolved by action item #14 (see below). The only remaining gap here is to fill the jitter reference â??â?¦jitter (see {TBD}).â?? I believe this simply should point to the OLT receiver tables 141-15/16 with Stressed Jitter parameters that Curtis and Frank presented on the call today. I already made this change in Action Item #14 (see below). If you agree with this change, we can close this action item.  Action item #14 is done. See the attached document (clean and diff versions are attached). Send me comments or questions, if any.  Action item #15 is related to this text: This TBD should simply reference the ONU Transmit Characteristics tables 141-17 and 141-18.  That is all that is needed to close these action items.  -Glen     From: Curtis Knittle [mailto:C.Knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]  Dear Colleagues,  Attached please find: Updated 25G/50G RX PMD parameters Updated action item list  Please let me know if I need to add to or revise the meeting notes below.  Curtis   2/14/2019 IEEE 802.3ca 100G-EPON Task Force Work Items and Socialization ad hoc conference call  Review of Patent Policy. Curtis Knittle read the Call for Potentially Essential Patents â?? no response to call. Multi-rate discovery process for .3ca MPCP Clause 144 (Hajduczenia) 25G/50G EPON RX PMD Values (Knittle/Effenberger) Action item review Deadlines: Contribution deadline for requesting time on the agenda and draft PDF files: Monday, March 4, 2019 AoE See http://www.ieee802.org/3/ca/3ca_presentproc.shtml for details on submissions Draft 1.5 Comment deadline is Monday, March 4, 2019 AoE. For details, please see http://www.ieee802.org/3/ca/3ca_commentproc.shtml Action Items:  Â
    Curtis Knittle VP Wired Technologies â?? R&D CableLabs desk: +1-303-661-3851 mobile: +1-303-589-6869  Stay up to date with CableLabs: Read the blog and follow us on Twitter  To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGEPON list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGEPON&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGEPON list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGEPON&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGEPON list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGEPON&A=1 |