Hello all,
I am forwarding this comment from Erdem Matoglu who works for Amphenol. He is concerned about the differences between the IBTA Spec and the IEEE Spec in regard to the HCB and the MCB. Here are the documents he is referencing: · IBTA Spec: Table 176 of Volume 2 Version 1.3.1: https://cw.infinibandta.org/wg/EWG/documentRevision/download/7446 o See Attached document for Page 561 · IEEE Spec: P802d3bj_D2p1 – Section 92.11 - you need to have your own access to this spec. · EDR Compliance Test Results for HCB + MCB 090313: https://cw.infinibandta.org/wg/EWG/document/7532 Thanks Rupert From: Erdem Matoglu [mailto:erdem.mato...@amphenol-tcs.com] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:29 PM To: Rupert Dance Subject: Re: [CIWG] CIWG meeting will be on Thursday September 5th from 2-3 PM EST Hi Rupert, Would you please take a look at Section 92.11 ? It seems to me that for the MCB, IEEE.3bj is more relaxed. For the HCB the IB requirement is more relaxed. Wilder is aiming for 2.2dB, but IEEE is asking for even lower loss. I think for the MCB the IEEE specification is doable. Even the attached presentation on Wilder HCB uses an MCB with 1.14dB IL. I also think that the HCB requirement and or the mated MCB-HCB requirement should somehow be relaxed in a controlled way for both standards. Regards, Erdem IBTA MCB IEEE 802.3bj MCB IBTA HCB IEEE 802.3bj HCB 7.0312GHz 0.55dB 0.72dB 1.5dB 1.15dB 12.89GHz 0.84dB 1.17dB 2.2dB 1.87dB Sincerely, Erdem Matoglu, PhD Senior Engineer - Signal Integrity Amphenol High Speed Interconnects 200 Innovative Way, Suite 201 Nashua, NH 03062 erdem.mato...@amphenol-tcs.com 603-879-3334
image001.png
Description: Binary data
v2r1_3_1.2013-02-20-Draft-Compliance-Boards-Page-561.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
