FYI:

During discussions of Training and the use/definition of Training patterns, the subject of when to reset the scrambler was explicitly addressed.  The text of the proposed standard clearly states it is reset at the end of RCDT in a Train-SNW and not reset again during that Train-SNW.  So the text in the proposed standard wasn’t just an arbitrary statement but one with intent. 

One may always make a proposal, but I don’t see a need to change and others my have stronger feelings.

Steve Finch

---

From: owner-t10@t10.org [mailto:owner-t10@t10.org] On Behalf Of Andrew.Roy@lecroy.com
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:43 PM
To: David Freeman
Cc: owner-t10@t10.org; Robert Watson; t10@t10.org
Subject: RE: SAS 2 - scrambler operation

David,

Your proposal makes me unhappy for one reason:  it is conceivable that
somebody's receiver design will depend on receiving a certain bit pattern
in order to train itself.  Therefore, I think it's important to have all the transmitters
out there doing the same thing.

Andy Roy
LeCroy

PS: Just my own opinion, not an official position of LeCroy.




Robert,

Thank you for your reply.

I agree that it is important to keep with the rest of the standard.

Section 7.4 defines the idle dwords that are sent when a link is idle.
“Idle dwords are vendor-specific data dwords which are scrambled (see 7.6).”

It would seem to me that a precedents has been set for allowing “vendor-specific” implementation of the “scrambled training data” dwords between the train primitives.

if this is agreeable with the parties concerned I would be willing to draft a proposal.

Regards,

David Freeman
Finisar Corp