Thread Links |
Date Links |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |

*To*: "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" <pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "HSSG_reflector (E-mail)" <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>*Subject*: RE: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment*From*: "Lindsay, Tom" <tlindsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:42:40 -0500*Sender*: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Thread-Index*: AcEaucPNc5xkSZgBSz+6F475+C+prwAAIlxw*Thread-Topic*: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment

Pat - thanks for your inputs. I agree technically with all you say, so it really comes down to how we want to define our terms and that the document correctly reflects those definitions. The XAUI folks have agreed (using your words) that random = Gaussian (or truncated Gaussian where the truncation happens past 1E-12). If the draft does not state so, then it should. We're obviously talking about probability density functions (pdf) as part of this definition. I also agree that crosstalk, at least when combined with all the other sources of (generally uncorrelated) jitter, could result in an overall pdf of nearly Gaussian appearance - it is a question of where the truncation occurs, so perhaps my previous words about it being DJ were too simplistic. This is good introduction into the next point - that given all the variables of crosstalk, data patterns, ISI, power supply noise, oscillator jitter, amplifier noise, etc., it is extremely complex and not sensible to attempt to clearly define or specify the mechanisms or sources of DJ and RJ. Therefore, XAUI has actually (attempted to) defined "effective" DJ and RJ terms as determined by curve fitting measured data with a convolved pdf using dual-Dirac model for DJ and Gaussian model for RJ (hence the definition above). The dual-Dirac model is arguably over-simplistic, but favored because it is by far and away the most mathematically tractable assumption. One of the problems with the present drafts, and that you are experiencing, is that Annex 48B is not complete. I believe Annex 48B is where these definitions will occur. Also in Annex 48B, I believe that curve fitting will be specified to occur from 1e-4 down to <1e-12 probabilities. I recall the Annex will provide at least one suggestion for curve fitting methods, but I don't believe accuracy of curve fitting will be specified. Note that clauses 52/53 are also using "effective" jitter via the bathtub curves and their W and sigma values. There, the Gaussian function is being approximated by an exponential function. What do you think? Tom -----Original Message----- From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:43 AM To: Lindsay, Tom; Howard A. Baumer; HSSG_reflector (E-mail) Subject: RE: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment Tom, Jitter always seems to be a difficult subject to sort out and your remark below caused me to do some checking on RJ vs. DJ. I've looked all through the 802.3 standard and our draft. There doesn't seem to be any definition of RJ or DJ. Processes can certainly be random without being random or Gaussian. Deterministic means if a set of conditions is set up we know what will result. The roll of a die is random though the result is bounded. If we are using dictionary words with a different or more restricted meaning such as random = Gaussian (or truncated Gaussian where the truncation happens past 1E-12) then we should define our terms. Since we specify deterministic jitter and total jitter, we should at least have a reasonably rigorous definition of "deterministic jitter." I also notice that in some places jitter is divided into RJ and DJ, but in other places in 47 it is RJ, DJ and sinusoidal. 52.9.10.4 (and the equivalent subclause of 53) divide jitter into random, deterministic and bounded. Crosstalk is deterministic in that given a fixed adjacent signal and a fixed coupling function one can determine the crosstalk. However, the crosstalk at a receiver is often the result of multiple disturbers coupling in each with its own function and the signals aren't correlated to the received signal. Therefore, the sum of the crosstalk looks like a truncated Gaussian. Even if the definition of RJ is Gaussian up to at least 1E-12, it isn't clear to me that crosstalk would fall outside that definition. I don't recall seeing any studies on the distribution of crosstalk for XAUI or for our optical receivers. I would expect crosstalk to be part of RJ rather than DJ. Regards, Pat -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay, Tom [mailto:tlindsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] See below, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Howard A. Baumer [mailto:hbaumer@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:36 AM To: Lindsay, Tom; HSSG_reflector (E-mail) Subject: Re: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment >>>>snip<<<<< - We're still confused on how you would ever get 0.55UI of RJ. If crosstalk adds so much jitter, **TL - crosstalk is expected to be bounded, and therefore more effectively deterministic (the definition of RJ is unbounded/Gaussian to least below 1E-12, and DJ is all other stuff).

- Prev by Date:
**RE: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment** - Next by Date:
**RE: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment** - Prev by thread:
**RE: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment** - Next by thread:
**RE: [802.3ae] XAUI Rj TR comment** - Index(es):