|
Attendance (no order)
- Jim McVey
- Lew Aronson
- Andre van Schyndel
- Paul Wachtel
- John Dallesassee
- John Jaeger
- David Cunningham
- Paul Kolesar
- Ryan Latchman
- Jonathan King
- Ernie Bergmann
- Gaurov Maholtra
- Tom Lindsay
- Piers Dawe
- Mike Dudek
- Petar Pepeljugoski
- Vivek Telang
- Majid Barazande-Pour
Agenda
- Attendance (done, see above)
- Build agenda (done)
- Review previous minutes (done, no comments)
- Technical discussions (see below)
- Next call (see below)
Discussion (TWDP)
- Brief review of decisions required, discussed last week. See slide 3
of http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/public/upload/TWDPworkafterLondon.pdf.
- In response to action from previous week, presentation uploaded to compare
metrics of SNR, TWDP, and implementation penalty (IP) with finite
length EQ. See http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/public/upload/AnalysisofSNR_TWDPandfinitelengthIPvs.measuredwaveforms.pdf.
- Discussions
- Use of finite length to represent Rx IP is not meant to be
exhaustive; additional impairment options are suggested in the last slide
for follow-on work.
- On slide 3, typo, the lower left waveform should be 1207-06.
- Are all the Intel waveforms filtered? It appears that some are
not. (I sent Jan an email asking about this).
- On slides 5 & 6, several waveforms are not displayed on slide
3. Some of the missing can be found through links in http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/private/examples/waves050330/MeasuredTP2waveforminfo.xls.
Other waveforms from the S041106- series can be found in http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/public/nov04/lindsay_2_1104.pdf,
although some of these may lead to penalties too high to support 300
meters.
- Slides 5 and 6 - is 0 dB IP for post cursor with the Gaussian
waveform correct?
- Small differences in IP across the range of waveforms is surprising.
Does this reduce the interest in using a finite length EQ?
- No, want to increase sensitivity against reflections with long delays
and to pre-cursor response, appropriate
for practical EQs.
- The anti-aliasing filter in TWDP may be slightly pessimistic by
increasing IP with finite EQ.
- Per slides 10-12, OMSD normalization appears better for relating the
effects of pre-emphasis, but this needs to be studied more to determine if
true across the board.
- Why are some of the best measured waveforms not better than
the synthesized Gaussian waveform?
- Hard to do better than some of the measured eyes with reasonable
yields; standard must set appropriate limits to support yield
and link closure.
- Are the comparisons real, due to mismatched rise/fall,
ringing, jitter, etc., or an artifact of acquisition (scope
timebase), or ??
- OMSD normalization shows this more than OMA normalization. Request
made to try other speeds of Gaussian waveform.
- Real waveforms effects can be part of the IP budget.
- Everyone is encouraged to review the data and follow up with questions
and/or conclusions.
- Next week
- Tom will be on vacation, will get another to run the call.
- Vivek planning to present on correlation across EQ lengths (action
from 6/23).
- Requests for new sims
- ~0/30/60 psec Gaussian with pre/post, long/short EQs, normalized with
OMSD/OMA. Show SNR, TWDP, and IP.
- Other IP mechanisms.
Next call
- Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2005
- Time: 9:00 AM Pacific
- Duration: 1:30 max
- Number: 401-694-1515
- Access code: 421721#
Thanks,
Tom Lindsay ClariPhy Communications tom.lindsay@clariphy.comphone:
(425) 608-0209 or (949) 480-9210 cell: (206) 790-3240 fax: (425)
608-0232
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:01
AM
Subject: [10GMMF] Reminder for TP2 call
6/28/05
- Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 (TP3 will not be
holding a call next week, and several on the call stated a preference for
Tuesday).
- Time: 9:00 AM Pacific
- Duration: 1:30 max
- Number: 401-694-1515
- Access code: 421721#
Tom
|