Re: [BP] Presentation
Charles,
That is correct. Is your question one of clarification? I believe
these limits are still fair game to comment on, given the on-going EIT
work and the subsequent impact it has on the channel models. (Adam - if
I am wrong, please correct me.)
Howard did some good work, and with the exception of changing the Amax
equation to a fit of data as opposed to its current basis on material
properties provided by Joel, I am open-minded to the stuff he has still
proposed. True, it will put more burden on the channel implementation,
but we are suppose to be trying to divvy up the problem, and I would
state provide an informative model where false positives are limited.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Moore [mailto:charles.moore@avagotech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:29 AM
To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [BP] Presentation
john,
I notice in your supporting slides that most of your comparisons
are to baumer_03_06. I do not recall that we voted to include those
specs into D2.4
charles
DAmbrosia, John F wrote:
> All,
>
> I forwarded a thread to the reflector regarding issues with the ATCA
> channel data we had. This and other channel related issues that Rich
> and I have come across are shown in the following -
>
> ___http://ieee802.org/3/ap/public/reference/dambrosia_r1_0306.pdf_
>
> Cheers!
>
> John D'Ambrosia
>
>
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Charles Moore
| Avago Technologies
| ISD
| charles.moore@avagotech.com
| (970) 288-4561
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|