| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Max and all, At the end of yesterday’s meeting Max asked if we should have more Use-Case ad hoc meetings before the September meeting. There was a problem with my microphone, so you probably did not hear my comment. I think that we obviously need to
have more Use-Case ad hoc meetings before the September meeting. While yesterday’s ad hoc was a good start, we did not even have time to finish going over your proposed definitions of delay vs latency. Kirsten has already sent a follow-up email, highlighting the need for finishing that discussion.
I think that we need a deeper dive on the latency/delay requirements. There was a factor of 10 difference in the two proposed latency requirements presented in Montreal: Kirsten presented https://www.ieee802.org/3/dm/public/0724/matheus_dm_02b_latency_07152024.pdf On slide 3 it states “It provides concrete examples of latency and latency requirements in a camera system.” On slide 9 it states “Ethernet latencies of
10us in the DS and of 100us in the US are sufficiently small …” TJ presented https://www.ieee802.org/3/dm/public/0724/houck_fuller_3dm_01_0724.pdf On slide 9 it states “It is proposed to limit the latency to
10us worst case in the switch to camera direction and 1us worst case in the camera to switch direction.” TJ told us that these requirements are based on our conversations with multiple OAMs and with the ADAS SoC vendors. There are also other issues that were brought up in Montreal related to Use-Cases that need further discussion. In summary, we clearly need more Use-Case ad hoc meetings. Ragnar 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 |