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

[802.3_100GCU] 802.3bj Test Fixtures comment#i-122 D3 sponsor ballot

I'm working to develop a consensus response to D3 sponsor ballot comment#i-122 addressing test fixture specifications. The TF reviewed comment#122 presentation at 11:30 AM today inviting 802.3bm participation in the review in order to provide information prior to comment resolution  (
As many wanting to participate in consensus discussion are finding difficulty in allocating time, the comment will be considered last in D3 sponsor ballot allowing time for discussion. In the meantime, we will use e-mail develop consensus response.
At this time, I believe we have consensus for the following;
(1)>>Cable assembly test fixtures (MCB's) can be designed to meet the Mated test fixtures return loss specification. Therefore
no change to Mated test fixtures return loss specification.
(2)>>Given the Mated test fixtures return loss specification can be met,
independent specifications of TP2/TP3 test fixture return loss are not necessary.
Please reply with your interest in participating in discussion on this topic...
Regards, Chris
In a message dated 1/20/2014 6:34:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mbrown@xxxxxxx writes:
Good point, Dan.

I could schedule it for 11:30AM. That will have the added benefit of keeping the discussion short. :)

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Dan Dove <dan.dove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Matt,

My concern about using tomorrow afternoon is that it aligns with decision making within the 400G SG.

Is it possible that we can arrange this prior to lunch?

Dan Dove
Chief Consultant
Dove Networking Solutions
530-906-3683 - Mobile
On 1/20/14 2:42 PM, Matt Brown wrote:

Hi everybody,


Since this comment affects bm, Adam suggested that I arrange an appropriate time to discuss this comment so that interested parties can take part in the related discussion.


I am proposing to schedule discussion for tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon immediately after the lunch break. This will allow discussion prior to the bm meeting, but may coincide with 400G.


Matt Brown



613 254 6728 office

613 852 6728 cell


From: CDimi80749@xxxxxxx [mailto:CDimi80749@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:38 AM
To: ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Adam.Healey@xxxxxxx; dan_dove@xxxxxxxx; jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx; mbrown@xxxxxxx; panslow@xxxxxxxxx; peter.stassar@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 802.3bj Test Fixtures comment#i-122 D3 sponsor ballot


Ryan, Please find attached...Appreciate your feedback on the proposed changes. The HCB's used in the measurements exhibits very low loss and well behaved >25 GHz. The specification issues are related to testing in mated state. I understand the rationale for this but it introduces difficulty in characterization of the fixtures independently although that's how they are used.

Regards, Chris




In a message dated 1/16/2014 11:41:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Thanks for the heads up Chris.  Can you send the presentation as may impacts CAUI-4 chip to module spec.

From:        CDimi80749@xxxxxxx
To:        dan_dove@xxxxxxxx, panslow@xxxxxxxxx, ryan.latchman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jonathan.king@xxxxxxxxxxx, peter.stassar@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc:        Adam.Healey@xxxxxxx, mbrown@xxxxxxx
Date:        01/15/2014 07:40 PM
Subject:        802.3bj Test Fixtures comment#i-122 D3 sponsor ballot

Dan et al,
All the best in the New Year.
Adam Healey suggested that I inform 802.3bm of pending review of D3 sponsor ballot comment#i-122 suggesting changes to 802.3bj test fixtures. A presentation addressing this comment diminico_01_0114.pdf will be loaded tomorrow. No problem with sending advance copy. Please advise on any coordination your team feels necessary...
Be happy to participate in con-call/webex if you feel appropriate.
Regards, Chris

Matt Brown
Applied Micro
613.254.6728 Office
613.852.6728 Mobile