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

Re: Interface reality check

At 11:21 AM 4/14/00, Bharadwaj S Amrutur wrote:

>For example, instead of transporting the fixed
>8-bit hex pattern for \T, the 64/66 coder merely indicates which byte if 
>any of
>the 8byte
>frame, holds the \T non-data octet. This requires only 4bits (actually log2(9)
>Similarly for Sp, instead of transporting the corresponding fixed 8-bit
>the coder indicates which of the  two byte locations the Sp octet is present.
>requires 2-bits (actually log2(3) bits ).  You can combine the above: 8
>locations for T, 2 for Sp and one where none of these two are present.
>This can be represented in 4 bits.
>Similarly, since only 12 non-data octets , Z, are supported, the full 
>8-bit hex
>pattern of Z is  not transported, but is compressed into a  6-bit pattern.
>8 are mapped directly into 6-bit entities, and the remainig four which
>to headers of ordered sets are treated a bit differently)
>Hope I have reduced entropy a bit.


Have you changed the 64B/66B proposal?  If so, can you send the details
to the reflector?  In the March update from Rick Walker
The control codes (z) are mapped into 7-bit line-codes (see page 6.)  Is
the above description of a 6-bit pattern a typo or are there some major
changes to the proposal in the works?

Thank you in advance,


Don Alderrou                          mailto:dona@xxxxxxxxxxx
nSerial Corporation                         Tel: 408-845-6105
2500-5 Augustine Dr.                        Fax: 408-845-6114
Santa Clara, CA 95054