List Home Dates Threads Authors Subjects
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,

 

That's also a great observation. Searching on "J4u", I find it appears in a publicly-available PAM-4 signaling app note published by Tektronix (https://download.tek.com/document/PAM4-Signaling-in-High-Speed-Serial-Technology_55W-60273.pdf). This app note refers to this variable without any subscript:

 

"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...


Adrian 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Raul Oteyza <roteyza@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [fibre_channel] FC-PI-7 Errata
To: Adrian Butter <adrian.butter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fibre_channel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dean Wallace <deanw@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jose Castro <jmca@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Raul Oteyza <roteyza@xxxxxxxxxxx>

 

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

 

Hi Folks,

 

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:

image.png

 

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: 

image.png

 

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,

Adrian


By Date: Previous | Next Current Thread By Thread: Previous | Next