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

[10GMMF] TP3 - Receiver Sensitivity Clauses - Suggested Change to D1.0 12-22-04.pdf;Receiver S


Attached is a draft of an expanded / rewritten clause for the comperhensive stressed sensitivity test.  I canalso proivide a version which shows the changes relative to the current D1.0, however that would exceed the 100k e-mail limit and my understanding is that files are not being uploaded presently.  Write to me directly if you would like the relative change version.

A few general notes:

Generally follows the organization and style of the 802.3ae stressed receiver test.

I have assumed that there is no sinusoidal jitter impairment which I believe is the current consensus.

I have reorganized the numbering a bit such that there are not so many layers of clause hierarchy (not having a superheading for the normative and informative sensitivity tests.

The draft assumes we settle on the 4 peak equal dT implementation.

It also has examples in graph and table form of the expected test signal with an isolated one bit pattern.  These types of examples are not normally included in an IEEE spec, but I think they are of a lot of practical value here.

Finally, I have provided a new block diagram which correct some errors mistakes , takes out the SJ impairment and includes the reference receiver for the signal characterization.

One comment which has been made is whether we should define the ISI impairment by the graph / table which I have as an informative example.  I could support this as long as we continue to use the ISI implementation model as a means for determining the required IPR (that is we have an IPR which can be accurately generated by a practical implementation).  Further, we should then have an informative note on that implementation and the associated peak height parameters.  In any case, the same information would be present and it would just be a case of which we can normative and which is informative.

What I don't think we should do is choose IPRs without regards to the implementation.


Receiver Sensitivity Clauses - Suggested Change to D1.0 12-23-04.pdf