Fwd: [EXT] FC-PI-7 Errata

[Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Dean.

And a correction to the errata observation - The current Equation 11 does have parenthesis, but in the wrong place - Instead of being around the second term (e.g. before the Q4 term), the left parenthesis should be moved before the first term instead...

Regards,

Adrian

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: [EXT] FC-PI-7 Errata
To: Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>

HI Adrian

Â

I will follow up on this. It might end up being an errata. We can also discuss this at the meetings the week after next.

Â

Regards Dean

Â

From: Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:56 AM
To: fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXT] FC-PI-7 Errata

Â

External Email

---

Hi Folks,

Â

Our team discovered a typo in FC-PI-7 which effects the technical accuracy of the standard. In FC-PI-7 section 7.4.2 Receiver interference tolerance, Equation 11 appears as follows:

Â

However, as documented in T11-2017-00296-v000 (containing baseline text for the 64GFC Backplane Variant presented during the Oct 2017 FC-PI-7 ad hoc by Mike Dudek) & IEEE 802.3bs Annex 120D.3.2.1 (upon which the former baseline text is based), this equation appears as follows:Â

Â

The difference being that FC-PI-7 Equation 11 is missing a set of parenthesis around the additive terms.

Â

As I believe FC-PI-7 is an approved standard at this point, what is the process via which to correct this errata?

Â

Thanks & Regards,

Adrian