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

Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44

Dear Dr. Galambos,

As indicated in 3av_0809_kozaki_2.pdf, RJ numbers in the Tables are 
not rms, but DJ aligned value to calculate TJ.  Even though RJ does 
not have the peak-jitter nature, I still think DJ, RJ, and TJ numbers 
should all be described in UIp-p.

Best regards,
Hiroshi Hamano
Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.

%% Tibi Galambos <Tibi_Galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
%% [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44
%% Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:49:52 +0300

> 	The proposal for comment #44 is to remove "p-p" from the headers
> of tables 75C-1 and 75C-2 altogether. This is not correct.
> 	The "p-p" attribute has to be removed from the TJ and RJ columns
> only. The headers of both tables have to look as follows:
> Reference point	DJ (UI p-p)	RJ (UI )	TJ (UI )	
> 	Justification:
> 	The jitter budget is built upon the following assumptions:
> a.	Jitter is represented assuming the DJ to have an equi-probable
> bimodal distribution and RJ to be Gausian.
> b.	All sources of random jitter are assumed independent therefore
> RJ rms values can be added by squares.
> c.	All sources of DJ are assumed to be correlated (this is a worst
> case assumption, meaning that all DJ components will be either together
> at max value or together at min value, with equal probability for the
> min and the max to occur)
> 	Under these assumptions, RJ and TJ are defined @ BER while DJ is
> defined by it's peak to peak value and then the following calculation
> holds:
> 			TJ (@ BER) = DJ p-p + RJ (@ BER)
> Tibi Galambos 
> Principal Engineer AFE (Analog Front-End)
> PMC-Sierra
> Tel: +972-9-9628000 Ext. 473
> Email: tibi_galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:itibi_galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hiroshi Hamano
Network Systems Labs., Fujitsu Labs. Ltd.
Phone:+81-44-754-2641 Fax.+81-44-754-2640