| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Geoff – I am wondering whether what you want is missing the focus on imaging systems. Your proposal, as it is: “Support an optional power efficient mechanism for ethernet that is optimized for automotive applications” Seems that it should be “Support an optional power efficient mechanism for ethernet that is optimized for automotive <imaging> applications” – (inserted word shown with < >). Otherwise automotive applications is quite generic on the traffic types. At least this answers the objection that a generic ‘power efficient’ objective would not be identifiable in the draft – as it calls for a ‘mechanism’. However, I think it goes far beyond the discussion to date, in saying that we commit to needing a specific mechanism to tune the power. For myself, it gives me something to think about should it become clear that a ‘mechanism’ is needed to tune the power of whatever PHY choice we make – but that seems quite dependent on the phy choice itself. I am of the opinion that you do not need an objective for everything you do, but you do need to do everything that your objectives say. Hence, fewer objectives are better. George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 From: Geoff Thompsonend <thompson@xxxxxxxx> Colleagues- Per my action item of Monday: Material has been drawn from: Page 5 Contents/Attachments - Objectives_ISAAC_01c_100423.pdf/Page 5 - Revised text for above page I trust this will be adequate for adoption or at least as a basis for editing.
Best regards, Geoff Thompson To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-ISAAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-ISAAC&A=1 |