| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Here are some comments on the proposed responses to some comments. I have a concern with the response to comment # 67. I agree that the proposed change is not editorial however the comment raises a very valid technical issue. If JP03 is used on the other lanes and synchronous
counter-propagating lanes, crosstalk from those lanes will not appear in the result for J5 and Jrms and would affect the even-odd jitter either adding constructively or destructively. We should be measuring the jitter with PRBS13Q, PRBS31Q or a valid 200GBASE-R/400GBASE-R
in the counter-propagating direction. I’d like to say the same for the co-propagating lanes however a valid 200GBASE-R/400GBASE-R signal isn’t correct with one lane replaced by JP03. Could we say “PRBS13Q, PRBS31Q or a valid 200GBASE-R/400GBASE-R with
the lane under test replaced by JP03.” For the co-propagating lanes. On comment #26. OIF has explicitly requested (when providing their drafts) that derivative work should acknowledge the OIF work. I don’t know of a better way of doing this than leaving this sentence. If
the reference doesn’t exist later in the process this sentence can be removed at that time. On Comment #2 although the numbers are the same. The parameters in table 120E-3 are the maximums. The values in 120E-5 are target values. We should ensure that this is clear in the resulting document. Mike Dudek QLogic Corporation Director Signal Integrity 26650 Aliso Viejo Parkway Aliso Viejo CA 92656 949 389 6269 - office. Mike.Dudek@xxxxxxxxxx From: Anslow, Peter [mailto:panslow@xxxxxxxxx] Dear Task Force Participants, Proposed responses to comments received against D1.4 have been posted: By Clause:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/comments/P802d3bs_D1p4_comments_prop_Cl.pdf By ID:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/comments/P802d3bs_D1p4_comments_prop_ID.pdf Regards, Pete Anslow, IEEE P802.3bs Chief editor |