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

[802.3_100GEL] Request to Re-Open Comments #136

Dear Colleagues –

I have received a request from Chris DiMinico to re-open comment #136 which we closed in last week’s meeting.  Please note that he sent me the request last week, the delay in getting it on the reflector falls on me (darn day job!).  He has provided his justification for it below.  Per our procedure, I will ask in Tuesday’s meeting if anyone supports Chris’ request for re-opening this comment and take a straw poll, if necessary.  IF, AND ONLY IF, the CRG decides to re-open the comment(s), will we then discuss the technical details of the comment.

 

Please look over the justification given prior to the meeting.

~Beth

 

PS – please recall there are 2 other comments with a similar request from Piers, see: https://www.ieee802.org/3/100GEL/email/msg00816.html

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #136 – Annex 162B.1.3.4

Comment:   Just as for the cable RLcc spec: this 3 dB becomes useless when the MCB trace loss is

half of 3 = 1.5 dB (16 GHz).

Suggested Remedy:   As for the cable RLcc spec but 1 dB lower to 30 GHz, easing up to 50 GHz: 12 -9f dB 0.01

<= f <1, 3 dB 0.5<= f <= 4 GHz, 2.6+0.1*f dB 4< f <= 30 GHz, 9.5-1.3*f dB 30< f <= 50

GHz. f is in GHz.

Response:   ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.

Per straw poll #7 there is sufficient consensus to make the proposed changes in the

suggested remedy.

Implement the suggested remedy with editorial license.

Straw poll #7 (decision)

I support adopting the suggested remedy in comment #136.

Yes: 12

No: 10

 

Chris’ Justification to re-open

I'd like re-open comment#136 to review corrected MTF RLcc; additional slide (slide 9) added to https://www.ieee802.org/3/ck/public/21_09/diminico_3ck_01a_0921.pdf. The WG should see what will be the draft as It's different than the adopted equation and required more than should be allowed for editorial license. The commenter reviewed the corrected equation and agrees it's what's he intended

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100GEL list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100GEL&A=1