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

Re: [10GMMF] TP3 OCt 12 meeting Notes

Hi Mike -
As requested, I have made some changes to my 12-Oct presentation to reflect comments received during the call. Important changes are highlighted in blue (I also made some other editorial changes). I have not yet updated the slides on "Part B", as I don't think the values are urgent.
Separately from last week's comments, I added another main bullet to the last budgeting slide to discuss if we have time.
I will send the new revision for Piers soon.
Another topic would be to continue the discussion about high frequency sine jitter tolerance - how realistic is it, what is it trying to represent, should we add it or something else, etc.
Tom Lindsay
ClariPhy Communications
Phone: (425) 775-7013
Cell: (206) 790-3240
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:22 AM
Subject: [10GMMF] TP3 OCt 12 meeting Notes

Dear TP3'ers,

Here are my notes from today's meeting.

Next Meeting Tuesday October 19th at 9am SJ, 5pm UK, 6pm Germany
Dial in (650) 599-0374, Meeting ID:     136169

Meeting Notes
October 12th

1. List Attendees

Bhoja, Sudeep
Ewen, John
Hanberg, Jesper
Jaeger, John
Latchman, Ryan
Lawton, Mike
Lindsay, Tom
McVey, Jim
Pepeljogski, Petar
Peters Weem, Jan
Popescu, Petre
Shanbhag, Abhijit
Swenson, Norm
Van Schyndel, Andre
Weiner, Nick
Willcocks, Ben

2. Review meeting notes from last week

No comments given. Whoops, none asked for either!

3. Review Lew's additional motions (which were not heard at Ottawa)

This item was postponed to the Oct 19 meeting. Apologies to Lew and Jim, it will be top of the agenda at our next meeting.

4. Presentation on relating TP2 and TP3 to the link budget from Tom Lindsay

Tom: Please send in corrections/changes as appropriate.

In summary Tom had 2 key strands running through his presentation:-
        i)  TP2 and TP3 testing should both be test configurations which seek to represent the relevant aspects within
            the link budget
        ii) Specific proposals regarding rise times for the reference Tx and PIE-D figures for the link budget

Separating these two points, the group agreed with point i). This gives us a framework for which to continue to define our tests - recognising we do not have all the numbers finally agreed.

For point ii) the presentation was helpful in supporting a useful discussion, although more work is necessary.

The group did not conclude on when and how to progress the budget.

ACTION: Mike and Tom to discuss the when and how to progress the budget and put forward a proposal.

Piers raised a good question about Jitter testing. He made the point that the jitter testing (currently one high frequency test) may represent a very harsh test as the impairements of the channel will add significant amounts of broadband jitter on their own. There was much discussion around this. I wont attempt to capture this but I encourage interested parties to use the reflector to progress the issue.

Upcoming items of focus (for subsequent metings):-
        i) Review Lew's outstanding motions
      ii) Static channel methodology
                - noise loading
                - channel types and exact characteristics
                        o i.e. do we pick pre, post cursor and quasi symmetric and if so where from? 108 fiber model?
      iii) OMA measurement methodology.

Best Regards