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

[10GMMF] Notes for TP2 call 10/21; reminder for 10/28 call

All - here are my notes for the 10/21 call. Below is dial-in info for tomorrow's call at 9 AM.
Albreght Rommel, Acuid
Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom
Vivek Telang, Broadcom
Greg Lecheminant, Agilent T&M
Pavel Zivny, Tektronix
Jan Peeters Weem, Intel
Tom Lindsay, ClariPhy
Norm Swenson, ClariPhy
Paul Kolesar, Systimax
Yu Sun, Optium
Martin Lobel, Intel
Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
Piers Dawe, Agilent
Others? Please let me know.
Approved per below, but Paul asked for a summary of TP3 call progress.
  • Report on TP3 work from 10/19. Reviewed proposals (see Aronson email to reflector 10/05/04) that we did not have time to discuss in Ottawa. General summary is that there were alternatives discussed and no clear conclusions. Work will continue. See Lawton minutes from 10/19.
  • Paul reported Petar's work on modal noise in task 2 group. Accurate analysis with realistic fiber and laser parameters. May be able to combine effects of modal noise, mode partition noise, and RIN into one model.
  • Will TP2 penalty test be done at TP2 or at virtual TP3 (TP2')? This method is similar to 802.3ae's TPD in that is indicates overall transmitter and dispersion deterministic penalty, but different in that the waveform is captured at TP2. Virtual TP3 behavior is determined by using SW models.
  • Next step for penalty work is to gather numerous waveforms that represent a range of good to bad transmitters. Waveforms should include effects from drivers, layout and coupling circuits, lasers, etc. I subsequently posted an email outlining the initial part of this work (sent (10/26).
  • Budgeting & metrics
    • General agreement that DFE will have a better chance of success for LRM, so PIE-D or other DFE-based metrics appear to make the most sense for budgeting.
    • However, PIE-L is still a very useful indicator of channel behavior and should be used for analysis.
    • What goes into the implementation penalty? (refer back to thread end of June 2004). Concern that PIE-D is too ideal and might require too much implementation penalty.
    • Suggestion to consider fixed length equalizer for budgeting. Ideal metrics may not accurately capture issues with real equalizers.
  • Laser non-idealities - Andre verbally presented a list of laser properties that may degrade link performance. Purpose of list is to help ensure testing includes all important effects. Since the call, Andre sent a written list which I forwarded onto the reflector, with his permission (sent 10/26).
Next call
  • Date: Thurs, 10/28/04 (regular day/time)
  • Time: 9:00 AM Pacific
  • Duration: 1:30 max
  • Number: 401-694-1515
  • Access code: 421721#
  • Proposed agenda
    • Attendance
    • Agenda
    • Review previous notes (above)
    • Technical discussion
      • Outline for TP2 waveform analysis (sent 10/26 8:57 PM)
        • Obtaining waveforms
        • EDC model to use?
      • "Graphical view" (mask) progress?
      • More on budget and metrics?
    • Plan next call
Any comments or changes, please let me know.
Tom Lindsay
ClariPhy Communications
phone: (425) 775-7013
cell: (206) 790-3240