| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, I have uploaded the comments that were received during the first SA ballot of 802.3cp.
They can be found at:
https://www.ieee802.org/3/cp/comments/index.html Yuanqiu and I will be considering these comments, over the next week, and will try to have the proposed responses uploaded by March 5. Included in this would be the designation of all the comments that are considered “easy (editorial)”.
Once we publish those, please carefully go over those to register any disagreements. We will agree to all those resolutions en-masse.
There are two comments that I’d like to draw your attention to, as I think they represent a ‘ping-pong’ state.
Comment I-30 (Piers Dawe), which complains that the language used to describe signal detect has changed from what was used previously. This change was not an accident, but was the result of a comment received in D2.3 #26 (Adee Ran), who
didn’t like the way the existing standard phrased the description. In my humble opinion, both phrasings mean the same thing, and any person skilled in the art would know what is intended. I would kindly request that Adee and Piers have a discussion, and
work to reach a compromise. Comment I-41 requests that requirements on K = TDECQ - 10log10(Ceq), Overshoot, and Power excursion be added. These items have a history in our project of being inserted and deleted, which has been a conflict between Piers Dawe and Peter
Stassar. I would kindly request that Peter and Piers have a discussion, and work to find an understanding. If you cannot reach a compromise, then you must notify me, so that I can arrange a schedule where both of you are present at our meeting when this
comment is raised. Then we can have the final contest and finish it. There is an interesting issue in comment I-32, having to do with a statement that the Tx should be at its maximum power and the fiber at its minimum return loss when the Rx sensitivity is measured. The commenter rightly says that normal
Tx’s do not have a control to raise their power to maximum, and so this is impossible to test. The motivation behind this testing requirement is that, unlike two fiber links, bidirectional links have the possibility of near end crosstalk (NEXT). Thus, to
ensure coverage against this, we want to test the Rx in the worst case situation. A possible resolution of this would be to require that “the optical return loss of the test link (ORLtest) is adjusted such that ORLtest = ORLmin + TxAVPtest – TxAVPmax. This
equation will produce a situation where the NEXT power is the same as in the worst case. Please give me feedback on this proposal.
Sincerely, Frank Effenberger To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGBIDI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGBIDI&A=1 |