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

[10GMMF] TP3 Meeting minutes, January 4 2005

Hello TP3ers,

Here are my meeting minutes from the January 4, 2005 TP3 call.

For reference, the agenda for the call was set as:

1. List attendees
2. Review notes from last meeting
3. Review comments for TP3 sections of draft
4. Review progress on algorithm development for selecting test impulses
5. Review progress against timeline
6. Walk-in items

1. List attendees:
Sudeep BHOJA
Piers DAWE
Kevin WITT

2. Review notes from last meeting:
No comments

3. Review comments for TP3 sections of draft:
Sudeep Bhoja, Tom Lindsey and others raised the point of adding a rise/fall time to the simple stressed receiver sensitivity and overload test.  Tom suggested 128 ps as derived from a 2 GHz, 4th order BT filter; he suggested that this might be easier to verify than frequency response since the test involves primarily time-domain measurements.  Nick Weiner suggested that the test is informative and for a straightforward filter like the one specified no calibration of the filter is required.  Piers Dawe agreed to send Tom some suggested text which can be used in a comment to resolve this point.

Ali Ghiasi raised a question as to whether the non-linearity of the receiver is properly accounted for in the standard.  The group consensus was that the penalty of such non-linearity is part of the implementation margin.  The consensus was also that the TP3 test conditions, specifically the two "high" and "low" OMA levels in the Comprehensive stressed receiver sensitivity and overload test will expose any such penalty in the device-under-test.

Lew Aronson presented his proposed re-write of the Comprehensive stressed receiver sensitivity and overload test.  This presentation is on the reflector archive at <>
Lew began by emphasizing that there is no sine jitter included, although it could be easily added.  Lew presented an overview of his document.  The primary area of discussion by the group was whether the calibration section should be normative.  This was suggested by Nick and Piers.  Lew defended the compact representation of the signal (four amplitude parameters and a "Delta -T") which would leave the calibration as informative.

It was suggested by Jim McVey that TP3 members use Lew's proposed change as the baseline for discussion of changes to the draft 1.0.  There was no objection from the group.

4. Review progress on algorithm development for selecting test impulses:
Jim McVey indicated that he does not yet have results to share.  Petre indicated that the "split pulse" type of signal in the latest data sets have put a new twist in the fitting process.

More work is required here (and I can say that since I'm supposed to be doing it!!! - JDM).

5. Review progress against timeline:
The Mike Lawton/Lew Aronson timeline was reviewed.  (Page 7 of TP3_Planning_Nov23.pdf available at <<>>)  Per this timeline, the topic of the day was "mode conditioning".  Lew had suggested using a standard-of-the-shelf 62.5 um offset patch cord for the receiver tests.  The purpose of the patch cord is to challenge the receiver optics to capture light and thereby expose the possibility of modal noise in the device under test.  Paul Kolesar suggested that two fiber connections with 7um offsets might be an alternate implementation.  The group consensus was to stick with the standard offset patch cord.

6. Walk-in items:

The next call is January 11 at the usual time.

Thank you for you participation.
Jim McVey