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

RE: 8b/10b and EMI

To any who are inquisitive about the IEEE 1394b scrambling,

You can find an overview at:

If you really want depth, the details are in the 1394b draft at: (~ 6 MB)
probably in the Bport specification clause.

Something simpler than this would probably suit our needs and
am working with some others on a proposal, but since 1394 has
been discussed I figured I'd put out the references.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kameran Azadet [mailto:ka@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 11:49 AM
To: DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1)
Cc: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; ka@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 8b/10b and EMI

Hi Dan,

	this was actually not my proposal, but apparently (I heard this 
from Pat Thaler and Dave cunnigham mentioned it in a recent email), this
is being used in IEEE 1394b, and also may be used in infiniband. I
don't know how the idles are treated (as opposed to data). 



"DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> Hi Kamran,
> I have to confess, I am not up on the scrambled 8B10B proposal
> so I will raise this question. If you pre-scramble the data, how
> do you pre-scramble the IDLE?
> I believe that scrambling data is unnecessary as the FCC tests
> allow you to send random data during your tests. However, they
> also require you to operate in a likely mode which is a totally
> idle system. Does the IDLE state randomize the 8B10B code as well?
> Thanks,
> Dan
> >  From: Kameran Azadet [mailto:ka@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >  Hi Rick,
> >
> >       thanks for your response below, and I agree with you
> >  guys that if
> >  the decision is to stick to 8b/10b and use scrambling on the
> >  top of it for
> >  improving EMI, then scrambling should be prior to the block code. One
> >  problem right now, is that this is not a proposal. Is it?
> >
> >  Kamran
> >