| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Peter, No worries, it’s a crazy time for all of us. And sure, I’m happy to clarify. Primarily, the issue was that I was having some difficulty understanding how those two sections would looks once your proposed changes were applied – I didn’t find the instructions to the editor to be sufficiently clear to understand what
the result would look like. Based on your email below, I now understand the intent is to remove the final sentence of 154.8.15 and replace it with a Note along the lines of the text that you’ve proposed, as well as to add a note to the end of 154.8.13 along
the lines of the text that you proposed. Thanks for that clarification – that definitely helps. After reviewing your proposed change with that clarification in mind, I believe that a potentially simpler solution would be to simply accept Eric’s proposed remedy as is, or when moving that sentence from 154.8.15 to 154.8.13 to change
it into a Note. His central point is that in an unamplified application the limitation is the power and not the OSNR; therefore, the note about channel loss better fits in the section regarding input power rather than OSNR. I agree with that statement. Your proposed change seems to be to add the text about this case being power limited to 154.8.13, but to retain it in 154.8.15 as well. While certainly acceptable in principal, it doesn’t seem entirely necessary. In addition, rather than keeping the text that already exists, you’re proposing a modification to the text that reads in part: “Minimum average input power
[unamplified]” will determine the channel loss for unamplified applications”; the equivalent existing text is “The associated channel loss will likely limit the maximum reach of these applications”. IMHO, the existing text is clear, to the point, and
easy to understand; I don’t see a need to change it. Did you have a reason in mind for modifying the existing text there? Hope that helps things a bit. Thanks!
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Matt, Thanks for your response. Sorry for my delayed reply. Too much going on right now. I am not sure that I understand your question about the notes, because in D2.0 there are no notes in neither 154.8.13 nor 154.8.15. For this comment the editorial team has proposed a response “proposed reject”, which based on further thinking and some offline feedback, I would like to modify to an “accept in principle”. Then in 154.8.15 there is a final sentence, which I am now proposing to move into a Note. And also add a note to 154.8.13. The rest is for further discussion, probably during the relevant call when we are going to address the specific comments. My proposal is for specific text to go into the 2 subclauses 154.8.13 and 154.8.15. The first question we need to answer is, do we want to “accept” or “reject” the specific comment or apply an “accept in principle”. If the latter, which I am proposing right now, then we need to agree on an instruction for the editorial team, which is the specific wording. My proposal for revised text is just a first step, keeping in mind that the unamplified case is something we want to continue to describe in an informative manner, but which is also something actually outside
the scope of this clause. So, then I also don’t quite understand your statement “I would want to ensure that the text talking about the inter-related nature of the input power and the OSNR is maintained”. I am under the assumption that I am not proposing to make any changes to that effect. So please clarify where you concerns are and which specific changes you would want to suggest. Kind regards, Peter From: Matthew Schmitt [mailto:m.schmitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Peter, Thanks much for the suggestions. A couple of thoughts/questions… Are you proposing to replace the existing notes with this text, or to amend the existing text in some way with this new text? I’m trying to get a sense of what the section will look like when the changes are fully implemented, so I can
better comment on them. In particular, I would want to ensure that the text talking about the inter-related nature of the input power and the OSNR is maintained, which goes back to the original proposal that essentially created a graph of what was expected
for compliant devices. That said, while perhaps it’ll make more sense in context, I am wondering if the wording “The associated channel loss will be determined by the value of “Minimum average input power [unamplified]”” is
quite what we’d want to say: while we can derive the channel loss by knowing the transmit power and the receive power, the actual channel loss is a function of the black link rather than the minimum power the receiver can operate at. I think the key points
here are that in an unamplified scenario the reach will be determined by the transmit power, the receive power sensitivity, and the loss in the black link, which _may_ limit it to less than 80km; as opposed to an amplified scenario, in which case your
limiting factor is more likely to be OSNR than power. BTW, I also think it’s important to continue to make it clear that while operating at 80km without amplifiers is unlikely, it is – at least theoretically – possible. If we state definitively that it’s not, we may get some pushback on that
point. Thanks.
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx> Dear colleagues, As mentioned during yesterday’s ct call, there are some comments for which I want to propose a modified proposed response. For comment #89 by Eric Maniloff I would like to propose to change the “proposed reject” to an “accept in principle” and change the proposed response to: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Create a Note in 154.8.15: In the case of an unamplified link the value of “OSNR(193.6) [unamplified]” is identical to the value of “Transmitter OSNR(193.6)”. The associated channel
loss will be determined by the value of “Minimum average input power [unamplified]” resulting in a maximum reach of these applications to less than 80 km specified for amplified applications. Create a Note in 154.8.13 “The value of “Minimum average input power [unamplified]” will determine the channel loss for unamplified applications, resulting in a maximum reach of
these applications to less than 80 km specified for amplified applications.”
With editorial license. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kind regards, Peter Stassar Editor Clause 154 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DWDM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DWDM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DWDM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DWDM&A=1 |