[10GMMF] TP3 call Meeting Minutes Dec 14
Here are my notes from our last Meeting ...
Please let me know of any ommissions/corrections.
1. List attendees
2. Review notes from last meeting
2a Transfer of Chairmanship.
Mike explained how he is taking up a new role in Agilent and that he can no longer chair the TP3 group. Agilent will remain a key contributor to the group with attendance from Piers Dawe and others. I am delighted to say that Jim McVey of Finisar has agreed to take on the role of chairing the group. Jim's leadership, combined with his technical knowledge will be very powerful in helping the group to progress. Mike's last meeting will be Dec 21, and Jim will start in the New Year with our Jan 4 meeeting.
3. Review Sudeep's progress regarding selecting IPRs (using Lew's flow chart
Sudeep presented a method for sorting IPRs into three categories (pre/post-cursor and symmetric). He has used an automatic technique which calculates the "center of gravity" for the IPR and compares it's location with respect to the largest peak.
There was a good deal of discussion on the details of Sudeeps choices. The results of Sudeeps algorithm show that he is clearly able to select example pre/post cursor and symmetrical impulses. However in the process of the reducing the number of IPRs there are clearly some fairly arbitrary choices which need to be made.
2 key questions came out of Sudeeps choices:-
i) is it valid to have such a narrow window for selecting pre and post (ie. the -15%+/-3% and +20+/-3%) and discard the others?, and are the %'s somewhat arbitrary?
ii) do we capture a symmetrical split impulse response in the symmetric group
To address i) Lew made the suggestion that we use a metric relating not to a % of the delay for the largest peak, but instead to use delays normalised to UI. Sudeep is going to investigate this
For ii) it is true that Sudeeps current technique will not show a split pulse in the symmetric group. Need to understand the significance, if any, of this.
4. Overload proposal
Tom presented thinking that at present we have to test for overload conditions both in the informative sensitivity test and the stressed Rx sensitivity test. There was some discussion around whether this could be reduced to a test that would be acceptable. Piers and Tom had views on this and agreed to keep working on this.
5. Informative Rx Sensitivity Testing
Tom raised a point that we need to check that we are describing the end condition and not defining implementation choices in the test. This would lead to us defining a nominal rise time (around 129ps) rather than specifying a BT filter with a given bandwidth. Piers felt that it was ok as it was currently written. Piers and Tom agreed to look over it again
5. Review progress against timeline
We need to continue to attempt to remove TBDs in the stressed Rx sensitivity test. Petre agreed to do some work in the fitting parameters (4,5,6,7 in Lews flow chart).
Sudeep is going to continue to work on his algorithm for sorting.
January 4 meeting is going to be at least partially taken up with planning for the comment resolution deadline on Jan 7.
Need a volunteer to look at test procedure and char for Jan 11 meeting.
6. Walk in Items
Paul Kolesar asked for some agenda time to ask questions regarding the need for a dynamic adaptation test. This will go on next weeks agenda.