Re: [10GMMF] Notes from Aug 24 meeting on TP3 definition
Dear Michael,
I was in today's call.
Best regards,
Yu
Yu Sun, Ph. D
Optium Corp.
Suite 505, 500 Horizon Dr.
Chalfont, PA 18914
Ysun@optiumcorp.com
Tel: 215-712-2445
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael
Lawton
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:43 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [10GMMF] Notes from Aug 24 meeting on TP3 definition
1. Attendees
Aronson, Lew
Babla, Chet
Dawe, Piers
Ewen, John
Fiedler, Jens
George, John
Ghiasi, Ali
Hallemeier, Pete
Hanberg, Jesper
King, Jonathan
Latchman, Ryan
Lawton, Mike
Lindsay, Tom
Peters Weem, Jan
Popescu, Petre
Shanbhag, Abhijit
Sun, Yi
Witt, Kevin
Zona, Bob
1. Questions on Stressed Rx Test E-O and E-O-E linearity
Lew presentd some slides addressing the points raised by Abhijit on this
topic.
In these slides 2 questions are addressed:-
i) With the ISI block before the E to O converteer will there be
intramodal dispersion and non linerar ISI after the the PIN (due to the
square law detector)
- the response was that the intramodal dispersion will be negligble
due the the very short lengths of fiber
- for the non linearities arising from the square law detector Lew
said he had a colleague who had shown him some references which indicated
that the E-O-E process in fact turns out to be linear (cross products
average out).
ii) The impact of non-idealities in the E to O conversion
- Lew stated that this could be an issue with a slow or non-linear
source, and a requirement should be included in the characterisation portion
of the test, namely
o The test signal should be defined optically and measured
with a linear reference receiver
o mismatch between electrical ISI and received ISI should be
corrected with either a better source or compensation.
We are awaiting experimental results before we close this agenda item.
2. Designing the ISI generator for receiver testing
We reviewed the latest set of Petre's slides, dated 24/8/04.
There was some discussion regarding the need for LPF2 on p4. It was felt
that this probably was needed in order for the fitting algorithm to be truly
comparing like with like.
There were some questions on the pulse shaping on pages 4 and 5. Petre will
address these next week.
There was some discussion regarding fitting with a pulse shape with
normalised area vs normalised height. Not clear which is best. The approach
used currently fits to a normalised height.
There was a discussion on whether a very high speed source could present the
test receiver with any problems and hence it should be avoided. No-one
presented any concerns on this subject.
Please let me know if you have any comments or corrections.
Next meeting Tuesday August 31st.
Best Regards
Mike