|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Amended the Attendees list...
Call for email indicating attendance
Attendees: Dan Dove, Chris Cole, Steve Song, Greg McSorley, Larry Green, Schelto Vandoorn,Milind Gokhale, Peter Dartnell, Xavier Clairardin, Winston Way, Shashi Patel, Martin Carroll, Ralf-Peter Braun, Paul Kolesar, Itsuro Morita ,Petar Pepeljugoski, Tremont,Miao,Steve Swanson,Karim Tatah
Chris Cole's Presentation
Moved through pg 1 and 2 readily, page three also discussed 25G(4 channel)
Peta r: Are you doing this in tandem with some work going on in the PCS, or is this a module-side perspective?
Chris: System guys looking at MAC architectures, 1st gen MACs likely will be 10G and 20GCDR is going to be pushing technology
Note: We need concensus on the PCS lane width as this may help direct optic widths.
12x10G links (8G links with 8B10B coding) as an example versus 10x10.3
Petar is indicating that offering 12 channels would render parallel optic solutions and WDM solutions with a common channel width
John Jaeger - Proposing x12 for WDM fiber?
Schelto/Petar - Latency is important to consider. 8B10B would provide lower latency.
Chris: 4 Channel necessary?
Paul K: 4 channels have advantage for mux/demux being a binary value. But acknowledges cost of increased data rate may not balance out.
Chris: 6/5/4 still open for 2X, 12/10 still open for 1X.
Chris: It would be nice to have 40Km solution that is leveragable from 10Km solution..we should think about it, but 40Km is currently not an official objective.
Chris: 12x10 should be included in our consideration for multi-fiber solutions.
Chris: Sounds like we have agreement that nobody is calling for anything other than 2 level signaling.
Petar: Is 12 channel much harder for WDM?
Chris: For DWDM, not. For CWDM.. Could be. The price of commonality on the 12 channel between MM and SM is not readily understood as worth its value.
John J: Not interested in 12 channel WDM
Chris: Did not put up 10x10G @ 1310…does not fit in 1310 window.
Chris: Did not put 1310 in 1x technology because people are not really doing that and would not be leveragable.
Chris: Sounds like we should add 12x10G on the electrical interface. We should look at infiniband and see how we might leverage that.
Chris: Uncooled solutions provide substantial (40%) savings in cost.
Chris: We should add 2x56G DQPSK
Petar: Should we assume that PCS interface and PMDs will have different channel widths?
Dan: Should we optimize the PCS interface for its ability to be leveraged on MM fiber and then leave complexity to SM solution?
Chris: OIF offering to develop an electrical interface that can run up to 25G.
Itsuro Morita 's Presentation
DQPSK allows up to 50Km distance.
Petar: Why not measuring to 10e-12?
Itsuro: Did not use precoder, so expected error rate in receive could not be measured. (not sure I captured this correctly)
Dan: RZ Carving?
Itsuro: For long distance transmission, RZ carving is additional modulation stage driven by clock.
Chris: Is proposal for 10Km 1310 DQPSK?
Itsuro: Yes, if it can be applied to 1310, it would be good solution. Not sure if its doable yet. Needs further study.
Chris: Don't believe DCF is practical.
Petar: If you use DCF, it would require tailoring of DCF to length… is this the recommendation?
Itsuro: For 10Km, with fixed DCF may be possible. Needs study.
Chris: Are you going to study the 1310nm/10Km alternative?
Itsuro: Need to survey availability of technology to see if it can be done/shared.
Chris: Can you share which components are used?
Petar: Why 108 bit delay.
Petar: Modules? Should we try to force them into the same form factor?
Dan: IEEE does not deal with implementations, but architectures.
Chris: Could we have 12 *and* 10 lane interfaces defined at MAC/PHY boundary?
Dan: To paraphrase; Can we have two PCSs and because they are highly digital, embed them in the MAC/PCS chip and thereby provide a common differential interface for either PCS with different lane counts? -- Seems possible
Larry: Meeting schedule for Monterrey?
Dan: Dunno. Please check the IEEE website. We will meet within the HSSG and not as a separate breakout.
Dan: Please keep an open perspective on how to solve the MAC/PCS interface solution when looking at PMD solutions with the desire that we come up with something that works best for all cases.
If there any modifications required to these minutes, please send me an email with specific recommendations for change.
Monday Dec 18th at 10am is our next meeting
I will send out a notice with specifics of the call soon.