Yes, I would prefer the “simplest” approach, saying “5.6 ? max channel insertion loss per 140.10.2.2”.
The construction with an additional footnote would make things too complicated to understand.
Kind regards,
Peter
Peter Stassar,
施笪安
Technical Director,
技术总监
Huawei Technologies Ltd,
华为技术有限公司
European Research Center,
欧洲研究所
Herikerbergweg 36, 1101 CM Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 4300 832
Mob: +31 6 21146286
From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 5:20 PM
To: STDS-802-3-50G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_50G] proposed agenda for February 8 ad hoc
Mike,
I would be ok with “5.6 ? max channel insertion loss per 140.10.2.2”
Regards,
Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street
| London, EC2A
2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |
From: Dudek, Mike [mailto:Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 February 2017 16:07
To: Anslow, Peter <panslow@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-3-50G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: proposed agenda for February 8 ad hoc
I think the allocation for penalties should be “5.6 ? max channel insertion loss per 140.10.2.2”. Or maybe change to “max allocation for penalties - 3.1dB”
with a footnote saying “allocation for penalties is reduced for higher loss channels see 140.10.2.2”
There was also my suggestion to look at 52.5.1 as an example of how this type of trade off was handled editorially in the past.
From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 12:46 AM
To: STDS-802-3-50G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_50G] proposed agenda for February 8 ad hoc
Matt,
I think that the entry in the Allocation for penalties cell should just be “5.6 ? Channel insertion loss”
Regards,
Pete Anslow |
Senior Standards Advisor
43-51 Worship Street
| London, EC2A
2DX, UK
Direct +44 2070 125535 |
From: Matt Traverso (mattrave) [mailto:mattrave@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 February 2017 01:47
To: STDS-802-3-50G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_50G] proposed agenda for February 8 ad hoc
Folks,
Thank you all for the feedback on
traverso_020817_3cd_adhoc-v2 during the ad hoc call.
I took the following notes:
1) Add a slide to section 140.7.5 proposing a modification that the optical return loss in the channel used to measure TDECQ is 15.5 dB which is accordance
with slide 5 of our ad hoc presentation
2) Table 140-8 Illustrative link power budget
- Lots of discussion, but the best suggestion in my opinion was to (a) point to section 140.10.2.2 for the channel insertion loss; (b) Insert a simple equation
“Penalties = Power budget (5.6dB) ? Channel Insertion loss” as the value for “Allocation for penalties” row
- I show this in the image below
3) Table 140-11 Channel characteristics
- Similar to other table, remove the “3 dB” and point to section 140.10.2.2 for the channel insertion loss
Are there other notes or comments?
I intend to update the presentation and upload to a future ad hoc. I intend to submit a comment suggesting that the editor modify Clause 140 per the updated
presentation.
feedback appreciated
--matt
