Alvin:
I
agree with you. Personally, I like the simple differentiation between
Compensable Jitter (CJ) and Non-Compensable Jitter (NCJ). That's what I
think SAS should use. I believe those terms are the easiest, most
straightforward, and least confusing way to communicate these
principles. If it is desired, NCJ can be separated into its DJ part and its
RJ part if such a distinction is needed. As far as I know, the CJ/NCJ
terminology shouldn't conflict with other pre-existing definitions.
An added attraction is that those terms are not new and are already defined as
they have been discussed in this forum for some time now.
Thanks
for your feedback.
/Larry
I understand
your concerns, however, rather than spend too much time on the terms to get to
the end result, let's start from the end result and work backwards. I think
the bottom line Mike was trying to share is:
TJ at ref RX output is "noncompensable jitter"
Instead of picking on the terms, how
about proposing what you think SAS should use? I'm in no way intending to be
disrespectful, but you are correct that the terms don't match up with these
other references and we may need to define something new to accomplish what we
want. Such a proposal will help us to complete the spec.
Thank you for the references.
Alvin Cox
Seagate Technology, LLC
Office
405-381-8067
Cell 405-206-4809
E-Mail
alvin.cox@seagate.com