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

Re: [802.3_ISAAC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [802.3_ISAAC] My apology if my simDM simulation code caused confusion

Hi Mehmets,

From your response I see that you did not follow my explanation at the meeting. 

I don't think that this is the best use of the Task Force time, but it looks like I need to bring in a presentation to explain better your misunderstanding. 

My apologies again for causing this confusion.

Ragnar 

From: Mehmet Tazebay <00002b0d1a6e9d74-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 2:45:39 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [802.3_ISAAC] My apology if my simDM simulation code caused confusion
 
Hello Ragnar, There was no confusion so no apology is necessary. You’ve provided a framework to 802. 3dm Task Force for ACT evaluation. That’s exactly what we’ve studied and simulated in order to confirm the ACT performance. The outcome of this
Hello  Ragnar,

There was no confusion so no apology is necessary.

You’ve provided a framework to 802.3dm Task Force for ACT evaluation. That’s exactly what we’ve studied and simulated in order to confirm the ACT performance. The outcome of this effort is that ACT has performance concerns even with a complex system implementation (as given in the ACT simDM simulation platform). 

Now, are you saying that we should ignore this platform and its results? If anything changed, you can always bring in an updated presentation with details for alternative implementation.

Best,
Mehmet 



From: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 15, 2025 at 5:36:21 PM GMT+3
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_ISAAC] My apology if my simDM simulation code caused confusion
Reply-To: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>



Dear 802.3dm participants,

 

I like to apologize to the 802.3dm Task Force if me sharing the simDM code has caused confusion. Sharing the code was done in good faith and I thought it was clear that the code was never intended to imply in any way that this code should be considered a preferred implementation. My sincere apology for not communicating this more clearly

 

My apology is triggered by the confusion where it appears that some members of the Task Force have understood my simulation code to be a suggestion for ACT downstream receiver implementation. More specifically, the presentation Chini_3dm_02a_0525.pdf states on slide 9 that

“Such a equalizer is several times less complex than the one suggested for ACT downstream receiver (see pages 4 and 5 of this presentation). The big portion of savings is in the elimination of ADC, but also in eliminating FFE and reduced DFE.”

 

I once again extend my offer to discuss and explain anything related to the simDM simulation code.

 

Ragnar

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1