| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Peter, I’m OK with the approach and would like to be part of the ad hoc call.
Would you propose removing the inter-sublayer signals PMD:IS_SIGNAL.indication from the PMD and PMA sublayers and generate the FEC:IS_SIGNAL.indication entirely within the
SC-FEC sublayer? In effect remove the signal_ok variable in the RS-FEC sublayer. I think you mean Monday 20 July, not 22? Thanks, David Lewis From: "Peter. Stassar" <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi,
Because I had some thoughts after our call yesterday, I contacted Eric and Steve Trowbridge to get some feedback. Apparently the three of us had independently come to a similar conclusion, that the SIGNAL_DETECT in Clause 154 is so unreliable for the intended applications,
that we doubted the usefulness of it. The three of us jointly feel that it will be impossible to define a suitable optical threshold that is also reliable and furthermore that the “real” signal detection
actually is in the higher layers and not so much in the physical layer. Thus we recommend to the group to remove the allocation/definition of an “exact” optical level for SIGNAL_DETECT. Instead we recommend to assign a fixed OK status to SIGNAL_DETECT, in order to not mess up with the interlayer relationships. Via this email I would like to check if there would be any objections to that approach. If there are then Eric will move forward and set up an ad hoc to further discuss. If there are no objections, then we can use this principle towards a suitable modification of the draft. Before starting to develop appropriate text to describe this I would like to know your views. Please let us know latest coming Monday 22 July. Kind regards, Peter Stassar, Clause 154 editor From: Eric Maniloff [mailto:eric.maniloff.ieee@xxxxxxxxx]
All, I was asked to set up an Ad Hoc call on the Signal Detect issue. I'll be organizing this for late next week or early the following week, please let me know if you are interested in participating by replying to this email. Scheduling is challenging, so please also let me know if you are participating in 802.3ck calls, and where you are located so I can try to accommodate schedules (with no promises). Regards, Eric 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
CAUTION: This email originated outside of Lumentum. DO NOT CLICK links or attachment unless you recognize the sender and know the content is SAFE. 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 |