| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
John, Thanks for posting your planned
co-authored contribution on objectives. As you said, this contribution proposes
the form of the objectives and leaves the key parameters open. I have
previously commented to this forum about a particular form that, while
apparently approved in the past, is illogical, conflicting and ambiguous because
it mixes words that define minima with words that define maxima. Specifically,
slide 4 states the reach requirements using the phrase “up to at least X
m”. One can take this to define a maximum of X m (i.e. ”up
to”) or a minimum of X m (i.e. “at least”). Given this conflict
the only logical interpretation that can simultaneously meet both is a reach of
exactly X m. I do not find this acceptable and have previously proposed
to state these objectives clearly as minima using the non-conflicting phrase “of
at least X m”. This will avoid some problems that have occurred in the
past with interpretation when the value of X was challenged. I also do not understand the utility of
the phrase “consistent with”. It appears to be a way to interject
some flexibility. But I do not have an appreciation for what that
implies. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. Without that insight I would
further simplify the form to the following. Define
a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper traces on “improved FR-4” for
link lengths of at least “X” m. Define
a 4-lane 100 Gb/s PHY for operation over copper twin-axial cables for link lengths of at least “Y” m. Regards, Paul Kolesar From: John D'Ambrosia
[mailto:jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] All, This email is to inform you of two updates to the Study
Group Web Pages. First, Mark Bugg has provided a calibration file, which will
allow de-embedding of the board traces. This file may be found at http://www.ieee802.org/3/100GCU/public/ChannelData/Molex_11_0210/2XCAL.zip.
My thanks to Mark for providing this file. Next, as discussed at our prior meeting, the SG needs to
focus on setting its objectives. To that end I have worked with Howard
Frazier and Regards, John |