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

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

*To*: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44*From*: Tibi Galambos <Tibi_Galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 21:51:15 +0300*Delivered-to*: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*List-help*: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-802-3-10GEPON>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-802-3-10GEPON>*List-owner*: <mailto:STDS-802-3-10GEPON-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>*List-subscribe*: <mailto:STDS-802-3-10GEPON-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>*List-unsubscribe*: <mailto:STDS-802-3-10GEPON-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>*References*: <3F4C85E56084AD4ABA63AA9D6585D4740477AA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200906072302.56007164hamano.hiroshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> A<4A2BDCBD.3000101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Reply-to*: Tibi Galambos <Tibi_Galambos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Thread-index*: AcnnhdoIcn+WqMiYQbyZwVqoWv/pswAGWbXZ*Thread-topic*: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44

Dear Kozaki-san and Hamano-san Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. As long as the BER is specified, I do agree that the units can in a certain sense be UIp-p, and if that is the customary I have no objection at it. As long as we all agree that the mathematical model (for Rj and Tj) behind it is an unbounded distribution and the "p-p" value is defined by the probability (BER). What I certainly can not agree is the removal of the "p-p" from the units for Dj. So whether the "p-p" is left in or not for Rj and Tj it is fine with me. Thanks for your attention, Tibi -----Original Message----- From: Seiji Kozaki [mailto:Kozaki.Seiji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sun 6/7/2009 6:29 PM To: STDS-802-3-10GEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44 Tibi-san, and all I agree with Hamano-san's opinion. In the meeting of Sept/2008, TF defined Rj value in UIp-p, which is calculated by using RMS value. Thus, the unit of specifications for Tj and Rj are should be UIp-p. Regards, Seiji Kozaki Hiroshi Hamano ????????: > 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) >> FTTH BU >> 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 > E-mail:hamano.hiroshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ----------------------------------------- >

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44***From:*Seiji Kozaki

**References**:**[8023-10GEPON] Comment #44***From:*Tibi Galambos

**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44***From:*Hiroshi Hamano

**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44***From:*Seiji Kozaki

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Start-of-Packet Alignment in Fig 77-14** - Next by Date:
**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44** - Next by thread:
**Re: [8023-10GEPON] Comment #44** - Index(es):