From owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Wed Mar 1 20:26 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 UAA19936; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:26:03 GMT Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA2291; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:24:22 +0000 Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29721; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:44:51 -0500 (EST) From: Ralph.Andersson@tsc.tdk.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: TSC To: Jaime Kardontchik cc: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Message-ID: <88256895.006D01F6.00@TSCGV.GV.TSC.TDK.COM> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:50:38 -0800 Subject: Re: PAM-5, what are your BERs ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Precedence: bulk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients 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: 102 Status: RO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3265 C'mon Jaime, there is indeed such a requirement although it is non-explicit. The 5 Criteria required for PAR approval contains economic feasibility as its last item. While this criteria does not specifically mandate CMOS, JR Rivers is correct that this inevitably winds up with the technology porting to CMOS (OC-48 is a recent example). JR further states that there are also examples where proposals have been summarily dismissed because they are "hard to do in CMOS". I will not be so bold as to state that some proposal rejections are due their being hard to implement in CMOS, but if you chart some of these proposals and who rejects them... well, you can draw your own conclusions. ...Ralph Jaime Kardontchik on 03/01/2000 09:31:31 AM To: cc: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org(bcc: Ralph Andersson/TSC/TDK-US) Subject: Re: PAM-5, what are your BERs ? JR Rivers wrote: > During the course of these discussions, I've seen people use "hard to do in > CMOS" as a reason to reject a proposal. > > I'm not trying to say that someone couldn't/shouldn't build a 10GbE > transceiver in CMOS; however, I am questioning the REQUIREMENT that it be > built in CMOS at standardization. I've been working on Ethernet products > for quite a long time, and every signalling technology has started off with > some non-CMOS implementation and eventually been reduced to CMOS. > > JR > JR, There is no such requirement. However, there are several proposals on the table (not only PAM-5 proposals) that claim that they can implement their transceiver in CMOS. An example, is 8b/10 4-WDM at 3.125 Gbaud. Another example, is Oscar Agazzi's claim that he can implement his "PAM-5 serial at 5 Gbaud" transceiver in low cost CMOS. (I am quoting one of his slides in his presentation) These proposals are included in spreadsheets and submitted to strawpolls. These claims are made to point out a significant advantage over other proposals that would seem to need more expensive and less accesible technologies. We should take these claims seriously as intended to say that their authors believe that their transceivers can be implemented NOW using CMOS. In some far future, of course, we can all claim that all the proposals will be implemented in low cost CMOS ... Jaime Jaime E. Kardontchik Micro Linear San Jose, CA 95131