From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Wed Mar  1 18:29 GMT 2000
Received: from gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (gatekeeper [161.71.169.3])
	by isolan.pdd.3com.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17396;
	Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:29:40 GMT
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3])
          by gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6)
           with ESMTP id AAA2195; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:27:59 +0000
Received:  by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)	id MAA28559; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:57:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <38BD5A4D.7020D01A@everest.ulinear.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:58:38 -0800
From: Jaime Kardontchik <kardontchik.jaime@ulinear.com>
Organization: microlinear corporation
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/782)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
Subject: Re: PAM-5, what are your BERs ?
References: <NDBBLFICGKDCKJBHKIAEKEEACBAA.edward.chang@networthtech.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <stds-802-3-hssg@majordomo.ieee.org>
X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to  majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
X-Lines: 45
Status: RO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1357


Edward Chang wrote:

> Sean:
>
> Thanks for reminding us FEC.
>
> The BER defined in the standard is the actual error rate without any error
> correction.  This establishes the fundamental reliability and quality
> criteria of components, systems, and technologies.
>
> The error correction techniques can be added as an option for applications
> which need better BER than what has been specified in the standard.
> However, this is outside of the standard.
>
> For cost-effectiveness, I believe users will request the specified BER in
> the standard should be sufficient without added error collection.
>
>
> Edward S. Chang

Hello Edward,

I can not agree with you on this, Edward. However, I understand
the philosophy behind this: a bare proposal without any
whistles and bells (like FEC) should still be technically
reasonable and achieve some basic reasonable and measurable
performance.

The proposal I presented, "PAM5 4-WDM at 1.25 Gbaud"
has these attributes: even without FEC the optical eye is
wide open at the input of the receiver and the static SNR
(even without FEC) is similar to the static SNR of another
respectable proposal: 8b/10b 4-WDM at 3.125 Gbaud.
In fact, without FEC it would still be 1 dB (optical) better.
(see my email "PAM-5, what are your BERs" from Feb 27).

Jaime

Jaime E. Kardontchik
Micro Linear
San Jose, CA 95131