[BP] IEEE 802.3ap: ad-hoc signaling task force: August 5, 2004 meeting minutes

["Altmann, Michael W" <michael.w.altmann@xxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: Signaling Ad Hoc Meeting Notice

Dear IEEE 802.3ap signaling ad hoc attendees,

 

Below please find the meeting minutes from the 5 August'04 signalling ad hoc conference call.  Attached is the attendance spreadsheet.  Please advise if I have recorded (or not) your attendance in error.  I will post both to the web-site once the area is set up.

 

Thanks to Fulvio Spagna for taking the notes for the conference call.

 

.../Mike

---

From: Spagna, Fulvio
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:26 PM
To: Altmann, Michael W
Cc:
Subject: IEEE 802.3ap: ad-hoc signaling task force: August 5, 2004 meeting

• Role call
• Adam Healey [Agere] introduced the scope of the 'ad hoc' task force: a forum to discuss signaling issues. This is not where a decision will be made but, rather, the place where a framework is established to compare different signaling proposals.
• Adam appointed Mike Altmann  [Intel] as 'ad-hoc' chair.
• The following are comments to the presentation given by Mike Altmann [Intel]:
  • Slide1
    • Petre[Quake]: the most important thing is the  CRITERIA by which we evaluate the results (BER, latency, etc). We should strive for a common platform for objectives rather than a common platform for sims.
    • John [Tyco]: expressed concern regarding the two other PHYs and whether they should also be included in the list of objectives for this group
    • Mike[Intel]: .. if the group feels it's needed we will do that. It is certainly within the scope of the group but we must agree to do so.
    • Jeff[Lucent]: methodology is more important that simulation platform
    • Mike[Intel]: focus on methodology rather than simulation details
  • Slide 3
    • Bill[ ?]: presentations discussed in this forum should articulate test patterns, equalization details etc.
    • Mike[Intel]: we should definitely agree on test patterns. As an example, the patterns used for crosstalk evaluation
  • Slide 4 (methodology for comparing solutions)
    • Mary[Lucent]: would like to add power as a factor
    • ? : .. and cost ..
    • John[Tyco]: results should span a variety of channels not just the template
    • Mike[Intel] we need to define the strategy: worst case only, best/worst, best/intermediate/worst etc....
    • John[Tyco]: ..yes, and extend this to include manufacturing variability;
    • Mike[Intel]: how do we do this?
    • John[Tyco]: a sync-up ( with the channel ad-hoc) is required ... but we could include data from different builds
    • Petre[Quake]: agreed
    • Jeff[Lucent]: when comparing solutions we should keep in mind the finite precision of the equalizers  ...
    • Mike[Intel]: in the comparison of solutions for a signaling/equalization proposal (the two must go together), we will need to understand minimum requirements for tap coeff size, filter length etc etc.
    • Chair will try to capture discussion and send it out.
    • There is a need do to have more discussion on methodology guidelines (which should be reviewed at next conference).
    • Adam [Agere]: take advantage of the reflector for advance discussion.
    • Schelto[Intel]: Let's add error robustness (i.e. how easy it is to detect errors) to the list of parameters needed to compare different solutions 
• Adam[Agere] reiterated that should craft link modeling discussion/guidelines so as not to exclude GB PHY or quad PHY
• Meeting closed. 

signaling_adhoc_attendance_master_list.xls