Closed sergiobelotti closed 1 year ago
italobusi
commented
3 years ago These are few references I have found from Google:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8570782
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6985541
https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OFC-2014-Th4F.3
italobusi
commented
3 years ago These identities have been defined in:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-00
sergiobelotti
commented
1 year ago @EstherLerouzic , @ggalimba56 : the two modulation format is already there in the YANG definition. Could you verify definitely if these definitions are real needed or if it is better to delete form the module? That should be done in the view of update for IETF 115.
ggalimba56
commented
1 year ago I’m not sure what is the issue, the 16QAM, DP-16QAM and DC-DP-16QAM definitions are clear and these 3 modulation formats are different. Then, probably the most common is the DP-16QAM but this doesn’t mean we can delete the other two.
italobusi
commented
1 year ago The YANG description does not provide a detailed technical definition of these modulation formats (besides the expansion of the acronym) nor a reference document where a reader can find a detailed definition
The 16QAM, DP-16QAM are quite clear to me since I know what they are
The DC-DP-16QAM is not fully clear to me
From the literature I have found (see https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext/issues/7#issuecomment-701238678) it looks like that this modulation format produces a dual-carrier OTSi while our draft is assuming OTSis are only single-carrier
sergiobelotti
commented
1 year ago weekly call 06-06-23
The final decision was to remove all the modulation formats with DC- prefix .
There is not a clear bibliography about the difference between these indicated modulation types and the usual DP-QAM8/16. The definition are inherited by other YANG module and we need to verify the real needs for these modulation types.