|
|
fibre_channel - RE: [fibre_channel] FC-PI-7 Errata
|
Message Thread: Previous | Next
|
- To: Mike Dudek <mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Raul Oteyza <roteyza@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jason Rusch <Jason.Rusch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 22:21:23 +0000
- Cc: "fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
In addition to the differences previously mentioned, please see the image below for two additional differences. I didnât see any references to equation 11 in the comment resolution database â are these also in error?
From: fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Mike Dudek
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:37 PM
To: Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Raul Oteyza <roteyza@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [fibre_channel] FC-PI-7 Errata
Agreed that there is an issue with the bracket being in the wrong place. (It really isnât a missing bracket. If we add another open bracket we would have to add another close bracket) I looked at the history and rev 0.03 had the
issue and we all missed it during all the reviews!!
Note that âJ4uâ is a name. There is no definition for J or U. I think having the 4 and U as subscripts helps to emphasize that, and this is better than the Ethernet formatting.
From:
fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Adrian Butter
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:34 AM
To: Raul Oteyza <roteyza@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: [fibre_channel] FC-PI-7 Errata
Hi Raul,
"Since the tails of the jitter distribution are unbounded, peak-to-peak jitter is ill-defined. J4u resembles a peak-to-peak measurement but gets around the problem of unbounded
tails by truncating the distribution. J4u is the time interval that includes the center 99.99% of the jitter distribution, {dt(n-m)i},from 0.005% to 99.995%. Itâs called J4u because it includes all but 1E-4 of the distribution."
Based on this, seems the "industry-standard" way to reference this variable is without any subscripting...
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Hi Adrian,
The âJ4uâ terms appear to be different as well â is it J with subscript of 4u or is it J multiplied with 4 and multiplied with the variable
u (J4u)?
Raul
From:
fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Adrian Butter
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:56 AM
To: fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [fibre_channel] FC-PI-7 Errata
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:
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:
The difference being that FC-PI-7 Equation 11 is missing a set of parenthesis around the additive terms.
As I believe FC-PI-7 is an approved standard at this point, what is the process via which to correct this errata?
Thanks & Regards,
|
|
|