Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[10GMMF] Notes for TP2 call, 9/16/04



Here are highlights from the TP2 call on 9/16. Thanks to Bharath Jagannathan for taking detailed notes. In the interest of time, and to stay at a high level for the upcoming Ottawa meeting, I have trimmed them down. So if I have missed any important points, please send comments or corrections as needed. Sorry they are late!
 
Attendees (no order)
  • Greg LeCheminant, Agilent
  • Nick Weiner, Phyworks
  • John Jaeger, BigBear
  • Lew Aronson, Finisar
  • Piers Dawe, Agilent
  • Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
  • Norm Swenson, ClariPhy
  • Dubravko Babic, for ClariPhy
  • John Ewen, JDSU
  • Matt Traverso, Opnext
  • Martin Lobel, Intel
  • Paul Kolesar, Systimax
  • Jan Peeters Weem, Intel
  • Bharath Jagannathan, ClariPhy
  • Bala Mayampurath, Vitesse
  • Premont Miao, Analog Devices
  • Jonathan King, BigBear
  • John Jaeger, BigBear
  • Sudeep Bhoja, BigBear
  • Others? Please let me know.
 
Summary objective (repeated from before)
Present a proposal for TP2 signaling parameters and associated conformance testing at the September Meeting. The work must consider and provide tradeoff information among component cost, test cost, and power penalties.
 
Reduction in power may be another outcome to consider.
 
 
Housekeeping
  • Verbal agenda was approved.
  • No comments or changes to the previous notes (from 9/9 call).
 
Progress, technical discussions
 
Presentation: TP2 test and specifications, http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/public/upload/TP2teststrategy04-09-16.pdf, Tom Lindsay. The majority of the time was spent on this presentation. 

General test objectives - discussion

  • Tom - TDP tests with physical multi mode fibers will have a lot of variability and hence TDP may not work for LRM. The quality of TDP tests depend on the quality of the reference transmitter, with better equipment resulting in lower absolute penalties. EDC technology is new and there is no standard implementation of the receiver that can be recommended today. The proposed plan uses SW to emulate fibers, the reference transmitter, and a standard EDC or metric to avoid these limitations.
  • Tom - one of the proposed concepts is that the output requirements at TP3 should be aligned to the input requirements at TP3. A mask test has indirect bearing on performance at TP3.
  • Lew - if we move away from the eye mask will be there a “quick and dirty” way of looking at the TP2 waveform and determine if it is good or bad? This can be done with the eye mask and is a good day to day practical analysis.

  • Nick - need to validate “Mask is insufficient” argument before spending time on looking for alternatives. Some arguments can be debated, and if a test could be found to account for the 3dB uncorrectable penalty, then such a test along with the eye mask test could be sufficient. Can anyone argue emphatically against using the (only) eye mask test?

  • Lew - the 3dB uncorrectable penalty attributed to the LR mask was unrealistic. What is realistic?

  • John - how would the eye mask test distinguish between correctable and uncorrectable impairments? Due to EDC, a fundamental difference between LR and LRM is the need for tests that distinguish between correctable and uncorrectable impairments.

  • Martin - eye mask will eliminate a lot of flexibility. Cost will be reduced with flexibility.

  • Tom - flexibility is good for any standard and a standard should not over constrain.

  • Martin - this (the proposal) was absolutely the right way to define TP2.

  • Piers - can we quantify the tradeoffs? 

  • Conclusion - nothing specific. Awareness being improved, more study required.

Categorization of TP2 impairments

  • Reviewed, discussed, and agreed to be the right list. Correctable and uncorrectable impairments are listed.

Correlated Test Set-Up

  • Tom - 7.5GHz scope shown because of common practice and to ensure consistency in test set-ups. Norm stated that he used either a 10GHz or 20GHz scope in his measurements.
  • Piers - recommend that the standard EDC not be implementation specific, and that something like PIE be used with an implementation penalty.
  • Jonathan - vertical averaging of the waveform will translate uncorrelated into slower rise/fall time. Overall impact should be conservative, so this is probably okay if jitter is not too high.
  • Piers - why not just put the TP2 penalty into the budget instead imposing this penalty on the transmitter?
  • Jonathan - will imposing penalty back on transmitter have any implications for the dynamic range of the receiver? It shouldn't, as the increased OMA will still be limited by OMA_max.
  • Greg - from a test equipment perspective, what was presented was entirely doable. Work needs to be done, but no new class of equipment is needed.

 
Next call, 9/23/04
  • All – Everyone agreed that a call on 9/23 will be useful. Call would serve as a good “pre-discussion” for Ottawa.
    Attendance
  • Agenda
  • Previous notes (from 9/9)
  • Presentations/reviews/consensus?
    • TP2 test strategy update, Tom
    • TP2 ad hoc report, Tom
    • Others?
  • Plans/presentations for September meeting
    • I plan on presenting some form of the 2 listed above.
    • Others?
    • Motions?
 
Tom Lindsay
ClariPhy Communications
tom.lindsay@clariphy.com
phone: (425) 775-7013
cell: (206) 790-3240
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:40 AM
Subject: [10GMMF] Reminder for TP2 call, 9/16/04 (today)

Reminder for today's TP2 call.
 
Proposed agenda
  • Attendance
  • Agenda
  • Previous notes (from 9/9)
  • Presentations
    • TP2 test strategy, Tom
    • Others?
  • Plans/presentations for September meeting
    • Overview of objectives, status of TP2 ad hoc
    • TP2 test strategy
    • Others?
  • Next call, 9/23?
Tom Lindsay
ClariPhy Communications
tom.lindsay@clariphy.com
phone: (425) 775-7013
cell: (206) 790-3240