Dear 802.3dm Task Force members,
During the New Orleans meeting I pointed out that there were numerous misunderstandings in the presentation
https://www.ieee802.org/3/dm/public/0525/Chini_3dm_02a_0525.pdf
Mehmet’s comment in his email on Friday (see email in this email chain) showed that there was still considerable misunderstanding related to the presentation. This misunderstanding was further confirmed in
offline discussions with the authors.
Enclosed is a presentation that attempts to correct some of misunderstanding about ACT that was present in the New Orleans presentation Chini_3dm_02a_0525.
The enclosed presentation is not intended to be an exhaustive list of misunderstandings in the Chini_3dm_02a_0525 presentation, but it points out the key misunderstanding related to my earlier presentations.
Ragnar
From: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 3:13 PM
To: Mehmet Tazebay <mehmet_tazebay@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [802.3_ISAAC] My apology if my simDM simulation code caused confusion
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.
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
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.
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