Thread Links |
Date Links |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |

*To*: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: [10GMMF] Suggestions on generating TP3 stressed sensitivity t est ISI paramters*From*: Lew Aronson <lew.aronson@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:28:09 -0800*Reply-To*: "IEEE P802.3aq 10GBASE-LRM"<stds-802-3-10gmmf@xxxxxxxx>*Sender*: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@xxxxxxxx*Thread-Index*: AcTbl+msGlUEdOlJQdCqNaJb99e8pQAD1xIg*Thread-Topic*: [10GMMF] Suggestions on generating TP3 stressed sensitivity t est ISI paramters

John, The idea opf these three types of cases emerged out of the work which Petre did. The very first question was why use more than one case if all solutions had the same metric (say PIE-D). Petre suggested, and most agree that typical EDCs have different behavior to the three classes of IPRs discussed, so we agreed that testing one oeach type was a useful tradeoff with test complexity (remember that each 1E-12 sesitivity test takes quite some time (typically at least 20 min) and thus expanding much beyond 3 is an issue. In any case, I would say an even split pulse would not be included in the quasi symmetrical, which generally look Gaussian, and is perhaps a limiting case of the pre-cursor or post-cursor. It may be worth asking the question as to whether that case is yet another degree of difficulty and should be particularly sorted out of the results. As with many items I tend to ask the EDC makers as what we are discussing is related to the idealities of the real EDC beyond the traditional metrics. As for differentiating the different pre and post cursors, perhaps that could be an in the emphasis of how we choose which pre and post cursor if we decide one is worse than the other. Lew -----Original Message----- From: Abbott, John S Dr [mailto:AbbottJS@CORNING.COM] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:23 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org Subject: Re: [10GMMF] Suggestions on generating TP3 stressed sensitivity t est ISI paramters Lew, this is very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. When you say that the consensus is that there are 3 impairments, (pre-pulse post-pulse symmetric) I'm a little unclear on what that implies. In the case of a symmetric pulse there are, for example, at least two cases of interest, a Gaussian-type symmetric pulse and a split-pulse (like the 1GbE "worst case pulse"). It seems to me that there are at least these 3 categories (pre- post- & symmetric) and then each of these has at least 2 subcategories for FFT decays fast (Gaussian) and FFT decays slowly (like ringing or a shelf) I am probably misunderstanding something so bear with me.... Thanks again for the notes. John A. John Abbott Advanced Modeling & Analysis Corning Incorporated SP-PR-1-3 Corning NY 14831 -----Original Message----- From: Lew Aronson [mailto:lew.aronson@FINISAR.COM] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:18 AM To: STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org Subject: [10GMMF] Suggestions on generating TP3 stressed sensitivity test ISI paramters Attached is a suggested general process for choosing the final ISI test cases for the stressed sensitivity case. Also included is a summary of the specific areas of methodology where we would need to reach consensus. I believe that work on the mechanism of the process will be more fuirtful than discussion of the channel mode or metric choices. I look forward to comments on this document and the specific questions raised and hope we can discuss this on our upcoming call. Lew

- Prev by Date:
**[10GMMF] TP3 call Agenda: Meeting reminder Dec 7** - Next by Date:
**Re: [10GMMF] Suggestions on generating TP3 stressed sensitivity t est ISI paramters** - Prev by thread:
**Re: [10GMMF] Suggestions on generating TP3 stressed sensitivity t est ISI paramters** - Next by thread:
**[10GMMF] Draft 1.0** - Index(es):