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

[10GMMF] TP3 Nov 2nd Meeting Notes

Dear TP3'ers,

Here are my notes from Tuesday's call ... any comments please get back with me.

Dial in Details (for next call)
Tuesday November 9th at 9am SJ, 5pm UK, 6pm Germany
Dial in (650) 599-0374, Meeting ID:     136169

Meeting Notes, November 2nd

1. List Attendees
Aronson, Lew
Dawe, Piers
Ewen, John
Ghiasi, Ali
Hanberg, Jesper
Kolesar, Paul
Lawton, Mike
Lindsay, Tom
Lingle, Rob
McVey, Jim
Popescu, Petre
Shanbhag, Abhijit
Telang, Vivek
Weiner, Nick

2. Review meeting notes from last week

3. Agenda additions/changes?

4. Static Channel Methodology
    - Noise loading - update on noise calculations from Lew

Lew updated us that essentially we are reaching very similar numbers using quite different approaches.
A power penalty of 0.9dB is equating to an OSNR of 11dBo.

The following two approaches have been used:-
        i) analysis for a non-equalising receiver
        ii) analysis for the case of an ideal equaliser

Lew did the analysis for i) with some additional comments regarding simplifications from Tom.
Nick did the analysis for ii).

Both techniques are within 0.3dB of reach 11dBo.

During the discussion on this topic additional questions have been raised, namely:-
        Q: Do we measure S/N with the ISI on or off?
        A: Consensus seemed to favour ISI OFF
                - consistent with TP2
                - avoids issues with IFR

        Q: How do we measure powers? (time domain plot and square wave or using a power meter?)
                - implementation choice, Do we need to answer this question?

        Q: The penalties for RIN and Modal noise assume a non EDC implementation could they be different with EDC implementations?
        A: Slight differences could be possible ... but to the first order we have some numbers to work with. Modal noise number needs more work.

    - channel selection process

 No detailed discussion on this topic.

5. Jitter
    - debate pro's and cons on i), ii) and iii) below:-
         i)   define mask and leave it to the implementor to determine what testing is required
        ii)  define mask and give the characteristics for sinusoidal interferer (pk-pk, frequency)
                - this would likely be a high frequency interferer with a separate test for tracking low freq jitter
        iii) use an approach similar to CEI. Here they use a PN sequence to phase modulate the signal. This in effect produces a signal which includes a "comb" of frequencies which are all stressing the Rx at the same time. Key question around availability of the phase modulating component.

Following some discussion we reverted back to our original test in Lews proposal:-
        i) Add 40MHz 0.05UI jitter source into the stressed reciever normative test
        ii) include a separate 40kHz 5UI test

Our next meeting is our last before the next face to face.

The deadline has passed for making comments to the standard ... which is now the prefferred route for influencing the document.

However there may be a role for me doing a short presentation to update the larger group on TP3 activities.

I will get this ready in draft form for review at our next meeting.

To do list for future meetings:-
6. Link Budget
7. OMA Measurement methodology
6. Any other items?

Best Regards