Re: [802.3BA] comment 505 against 802.3ba D3.0

["Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)" <steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Arthur,

Would "adjacent PMA" be better than "co-located PMA?"

It is feasible that you have more than one PMA in a package, e.g., PMA/FEC/PMA/PMD and it should be clear that the one adjacent to the PMD is what is intended.

Regards,

Steve

---

From: Arthur Marris [mailto:arthurm@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:37 AM
To: STDS-802-3-HSSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3BA] comment 505 against 802.3ba D3.0

Does anyone object to changing the draft as follows?

 

 

In 84.7.8 change:

"Loopback mode shall be provided for the 40GBASE-KR4 PMD by the transmitters and receivers of a device as a test function to the device."

to:

"Local loopback mode is provided by the co-located PMA for the 40GBASE-KR4 PMD as a test function to the device."

 

In 85.7.8 change:

"Loopback mode shall be provided for the 40GBASE-CR4 and 100GBASE-CR10 PMDs by the transmitters and receivers of a device as a test function to the device."

to:

"Local loopback mode is provided by the co-located PMA for the 40GBASE-CR4 and 100GBASE-CR10 PMDs as a test function to the device."

 

 

and stating in Clauses 45 and 83 that loopback is mandatory for the copper port types.

 

 

The alternative is to leave the text unchanged and equivalent to the text in Clause 72 (72.6.6) on the assumption that implementers will have no trouble with loopback being controlled by a bit called ‘PMA local loopback’.

 

Feel free to respond directly to me if you prefer not to use the reflector.

 

Thanks,

    Arthur