2 Feb 2005IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2 & 4: Launch Study 1 IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2 and 4 Launch study Teleconference notes, 2nd Feb 2005 Jonathan King

2 Feb 2005IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2 & 4: Launch Study 2 Agenda 1)attendees 2)Joint task 2 and task 4 launch study a)status after the Jan 05 meeting b)discussion of residual items for launch study group Is there a CPR spec issue? wider Tx OMA needed? Recommendation for preferred method for implementing the dual launch ? PIE-D for a multi-mode CL type launch on 54YY and 67YY launch? 3)other business 4)next meeting date/time if needed

2 Feb 2005IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2 & 4: Launch Study 3 1) Attendees Jonathan King, Big Bear Networks Yu Sun, Optium John Ewen, JDSU Piers Dawe, Agilent Andre van Schyndel, Bookham David Cunningham, Agilent Mike Dudek, Picolight Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM John George, OFS

2 Feb 2005IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2 & 4: Launch Study 4 2) Joint task 2 and task 4 launch study a) Status after the Jan 05 meeting Primary & alternative launches were voted in at the Vancouver task force meeting OM1 - Primary launch via MCP, alternative CL via standard MMF patchcord OM2 - Primary launch via MCP, alternative CL via standard MMF patchcord OM3 - Primary launch CL via standard MMF patchcord, alternative launch via MCP b) Discussion of residual items for launch study group Is there a CPR spec issue ? The revised draft specifies a Tx OMA range that must be met with MPC and MMF patchcords - has the coupled power ratio of TOSA sources been sufficiently accounted for in the spec? Mike Dudek explained that with a typical TOSA there is only partial attenuation of power in the cladding of the TOSA single mode stub output, so the power coupled into a single mode fibre (such as the input of an MCP) is lower than into MMF. Piers Dawe said that coupled power ratio had been accounted for in the OMA spec, but that excess loss of the MCP (max 0.5dB) had not. David Cunningham pointed out that a coupled power ratio spec is unnecessary since the Tx OMA spec bounds the CPR. Does this group need to draft a recommendation for implementing the dual launch ? After discussion it was decided that it was not necessary to add a recommendation concerning the implementation of the dual launch. The standard will specify the MCP as the preferred launch (for example for OM1) and centre launch as an alternative launch. In the field it was expected that CL would be used first, then MCP if needed, as in 1GigE. John George guessed that about 90% of fibres may work first time with centre launch. PIE-D for a multi-mode CL type launch on 54YY and 67YY launch ? The question referred to whether PIE-D values needed to be recalculated for a centre launch from a 'large spot' type launch from a typical TOSA design (using a ball lens and a single mode stub). It was thought that it may be difficult to agree a common definition of a standard launch MPD for this, whereas a single mode fibre launch spot is well defined. Piers Dawe noted that the quality of the launch from the TOSA into MMF was at least partly constrained by the Tx OMA specification and requirement it be met with both MMF and MCP. David Cunningham commented that the advantage of the dual launch approach was not dependent on a tight specification of what centre launch was. John Ewen offered to post a graph of correlation between OSL vs offset bandwidth and OFL bandwidth that shows that at 20 um offset, fibre bandwidth is anti-correlated with OFL bandwidth, while at offsets below 15um, the OSL bandwidth was uncorrelated with OFL bandwidth.

2 Feb 2005IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2 & 4: Launch Study 5 4) Next meeting Wednesday 9th February am PCT 3) Other business It was decided that the launch study group should convene weekly on an 'as needed basis' with the same format/time as usual