Re: [10GMMF] Notes from Aug 3rd Meeting on TP3 Definition
I apologize I could not attend the meeting. I do want to comment on the
testing philosophy issue. I feel very strongly that the right way to go
is with the "simple as could be defended in order to support making the
test practical and repeatable" methodology as proposed by Lew Aronson.
I believe it is very important that the main normative tests be designed
in such a way that they can easily be implemented as production tests.
The stressed sensitivity test is the most important of these. If we
encumber this primary normative test to the point that it is impractical
for use as a production screen one of two things will happen;
- Each customer/vendor pair will invent their own acceptance
tests, which results in chaos.
- Things will default back to unstressed receiver testing which
has been shown to ignore important and primary performance issues.
For this reason I believe it is important to break the normative tests
down into practical, repeatable and digestible blocks, e.g. keeping the
static stressed test and the dynamic channel affects tests separate.
This way each customer/vendor can choose which tests should be 100%
production tests and which can be sample tests or qualification only
tests, but the tests that are performed in either case are well defined
by the standard.
With this in mind I suggest we adopt Lew's proposal as the starting
point and continue to move it forward as a framework in parallel with
the channel modeling effort with the intention of adjusting parameters
consistent with the final channel model later. We made great progress
leading up to and during the July plenary meeting and I believe this is
the best way to keep that momentum going.
Marketing Director, Enterprise Optics
Intel Optical Platform Division