| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
The Editor must have missed the January presentation where the End Users were very clear on their preference.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/Jan20/cole_3cu_01b_0120.pdf#page=29 It would sever the IEEE better if we wrote the specifications for them, rather than for our own notion of aesthetics. Chris From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Gary and cu colleagues, I just had a look at your presentation proposing responses to #77 and #84. While I would agree that the changes agreed in Geneva could cause potential confusing, but at the same time I would agree with Chris, having proposed the changes during the Geneva meeting, that having just the
formula’s would also be confusing. I believe there is another possibility for addressing the 2 related comments, which is by doing both, namely where we maintain the line in the Table for SECQ up to 1.4 dB with a fixed value and another line for
SECQ higher than 1.4 dB where we show the formula. Then we don’t need the extensive note. Furthermore we will also maintain the intent of the change made in D2.0. There is precedence of dual line entrances in the various Transmitter Tables, where we distinguish between values for power above and below a certain extinction ratio. Looking forward to our further discussion today. Kind regards, Peter To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1 |