On May 28, 2025, at 8:00 PM, Kamal Dalmia <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Eyal,
The PAR for the project is as follows-
“5.2.b Scope of the project: The scope of this project is to specify additions to and appropriate modifications of IEEE Std 802.3 to add Physical Layer specifications and management parameters for electrical media and operating conditions
that are optimized for automotive end-node camera links for operation
up to 10 Gb/s in one direction and with a lower data rate in the other direction.”
The PAR is an overarching document that defines what is within the scope of this project. It is available at
https://www.ieee802.org/3/dm/P802.3dm_PAR.pdf
As can be observed, the PAR would allow an uplink rate of 1G for the downstream rates of 10G, 5G and 2.5G.
It is up to the Task Force to evaluate the need and then adopt it as an “objective”.
Objectives can be changed during the course of the project. Currently, there is an objective for 100M. Objectives are available at
https://www.ieee802.org/3/ISAAC/public/0324/Objectives_ISAAC_01_0324.pdf
If you feel that there would be reasonably sufficient demand for 1G, it can be discussed, evaluated and added if there is sufficient support for it.
I have seen similar requests from other potential customers and would personally support such an objective. This would make 802.3dm more future proofed.
Regards
Kamal
From:
Eyal Cimet <ecimet@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 1:48 PM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kamal Dalmia <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study
CAUTION: This email is from an external origin!
Regarding your point about backchannel bandwidth, are you referring to a potential backchannel data rate of more than the current objective of 100Mbps?
Oh - thanks Kamal and George for pointing this out, I did not realize that this target had been formally adopted, apologies. If that's the case, then I wouldn't use this as a comparison criteria, unless any
of the proposals would have difficulty getting to the 100Mbps rate.
Some context around this - some sensors often will have additional Ethernet links in parallel to their higher-speed data links (e.g. GMSL2 / GMSL3 + 1G-T1) for various reasons. So being able to e.g. aggregate
both of those needs into the asymmetrical 802.3dm interface could provide some nice architectural wins. I know some sensor architects that would be really happy if the "lower-speed" direction could accommodate up to 1G, but it's not a must and probably has
trade-offs with other critical parameters like power, etc. 100Mbps sounds fine.
|
|
Mobile: +16692379525 |
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 1:29 PM George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kamal - I believe that as an ethernet system, with the currently adopted text by the group, the two are one and the same. The adopted text for Clause 46, the logical interface to the MAC, specifies that in asymmetric PHYs the low-speed rate is 100 Mbps.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Dalmia <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 1:20 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study
Hello Eyal,
Regarding your point about backchannel bandwidth, are you referring to a potential backchannel data rate of more than the current objective of 100Mbps?
Regards
Kamal
From: Eyal Cimet <000045a9526b5fac-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 8:29 AM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_ISAAC] AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study
CAUTION: This email is from an external origin!
Thanks for the meeting today!
A few other things that I think could potentially serve as comparison criteria or at least interesting metrics for solutions from a system standpoint:
* Link startup time, which is a bit different than general latency - could potentially come under the topic of autonegotiation (in many cases we disable autonegotiation to simplify startup)
* Low-speed / backchannel bandwidth - while the asymmetric link speed is usually sufficient, it is interesting to see what its limits are, which have an impact on system-level applications like sideband traffic for sensor control, etc.
* Temperature stability - if one of the duplex proposals is inherently more sensitive or more robust to temperature, that could play a role in complexity of the solution. For example there are other protocols that involve periodic retraining of the link to detect changes in temperature or channel variations over time.
If any of these is too product-specific, feel free to ignore - my main intent was to bring up any inherent differences between the proposals that would feed into the decision process, and thought it would be beneficial to post these on the reflector as well.
All the best,
[Image removed by sender.]
Eyal Cimet
Hardware Engineer
Mobile: +16692379525
waymo.com<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waymo.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHqhaGoKwn_TpNs3uLRDvZOY95KvA>
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:26 PM Eyal Cimet <ecimet@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ecimet@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for sending out this initial proposal - I'm attaching a copy of the initial spreadsheet with some comments on the various criteria, hope this helps and happy to discuss in the meeting. (We can also collaborate on a shared doc somewhere, but wasn't sure if that was the intent)
Three main points of feedback for the group that I feel are common across many of the criteria:
* Some of the proposed criteria seem to prioritize the existence of experimental data, e.g. comparing EMC measurement results. I might be misunderstanding something but that doesn't seem like a meaningful metric to me, for a few reasons:
* EMC performance will be highly-dependent on each vendors implementation, and the OEMs might care about very different things (almost every OEM has some internal spec that is more stringent than CISPR25)
And if CISPR25 is the baseline criteria, I don't view that as a differentiator - any solution for 802.3dm would need to pass those things regardless, otherwise it isn't feasible as a solution.
* Even if the standard is rock solid, it's always possible to implement a solution that will perform poorly (bad layout, low-quality cables, etc.), so the existence of great data under ideal conditions doesn't add a lot of value to the study IMHO.
Overall, I think that the EMC criteria should focus on what's inherently different between the approaches from a technical perspective - such as what they are susceptible to (e.g. broadband vs. spurious emissions) or how sensitive they would be to cable impedance variations, etc. which happen in the real world.
I don't think one approach having measurement data first is necessarily indicative of which one is better.
* I view myself as a neutral participant - meaning I have no financial or personal stake in any of the proposals. There are participants from across the industry, however, where that is clearly not the case and even though I'm sure intentions are pure, it'll be very tough to maintain objectivity across this process.
I would really like to see more "neutral" participants and/or leads like the committee chair(s) drive these discussions / reviews if possible, in order to keep objectivity top of mind.
* While the criteria proposal is great, it's tough to assign "weights" to each one - and I think that those weights will be the main points of contention between the participants. This is where I think help from "neutral" participants would be the most valuable.
Just my $.02, really interested in hearing all the other inputs.
All the best,
[Image removed by sender.]
Eyal Cimet
Hardware Engineer
Mobile: +16692379525<tel:(669)%20237-9525>
waymo.com<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waymo.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHqhaGoKwn_TpNs3uLRDvZOY95KvA>
On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 1:12 PM Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <00004506adf647e4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:00004506adf647e4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dear Ragnar,
in your email you are saying “During the discussion on May 1st at least one supporter of this document stated clearly that the outcome of this document would not change their mind about TDD vs ACT”. Who do you mean? There are only two supporters/authors on the document. Both Gumersindo and I can change our minds in the presence of good arguments. Any other interpretation of what has been said is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation.
Furthermore you write “I also heard at least one supporter of this document questioning if this document would change the mind of other individuals in the Task Force.” We sincerely apologize if more listeners had the same mishearing as you did. Part of what we believe makes a good engineer is the capability to change his/her mind in the presence of good arguments and we believe that the dm group consists of many very capable engineers. What would be the sense of striving for a comparison document otherwise?
Thank you for giving us the reason to clarify this to the group.
Kind regards,
Kirsten
Von: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2025 18:52
An: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: [802.3_ISAAC] [EXTERNAL] RE: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study
Hi Gumersindo, Do I understand correctly that you are giving people 2-3 working days to send in “criteria deemed important”? Is this a hard cut-off date? I see that you talk about discussing “criteria fulfillment”. Can you please elaborate on ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart Prioritize security for external emails:
Confirm sender and content safety before clicking links or opening attachments
Report Suspicious <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/CRVmXkqW!ui3X2N84rjX7-6H8ON1a75zvKzfZ9C-N6qVzAwojWTQW9CQBGxtS7Chl52GzyvbTO9xIaFebZtjvRXrifY5adscIYWbrrGfQNQILrQRMikcSP2eCCyypLEAOqwvNF4bSo2HRgpju1FQCESmREhSe5HqdUGk$>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Sent from outside the BMW organization - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments.
Absender außerhalb der BMW Organisation - Bitte VORSICHT beim Öffnen von Links und Anhängen.
________________________________
Hi Gumersindo,
Do I understand correctly that you are giving people 2-3 working days to send in “criteria deemed important”? Is this a hard cut-off date?
I see that you talk about discussing “criteria fulfillment”. Can you please elaborate on what this discussion will output?
During the discussion in New Orleans, you clarified that this work would result in input into the Task Force and was not an attempt to circumvent the Task Force. However, I see that your presentation on the New Orleans meeting page has not been updated to reflect what you presented: https://www.ieee802.org/3/dm/public/0525/index.html. Can you please clarify who will be the target audience of this document? If it is the Task Force, do you believe that the Task Force lacks clarity on what it is trying to achieve?
How will disagreement be handled in in the discussion of this document? What kind of majority will be needed to put something into the document? Who makes the final call on what is in the output document?
In your list on slide 7 of the New Orleans presentation I see things like “Bi-directional use of ports”. In my mind it is obvious that we will have traffic in both directions on the link. Are you suggesting there that there should be a link that only goes in one direction, without any data flow in the other direction? Would you agree that this would be out of scope for the project?
Talking about things that are out of scope, in the Study Group there was majority support for including data rates above 10Gbps, but not the necessary 75% support for it. Would considerations about extending the data rates above 10Gbps be in scope for your document?
Like I said in the New Orleans meeting, I am not sure what the value of this document will be for the Task Force. I worry that this will be a distraction for the Task Force without delivering any tangible benefits. During the discussion on May 1st at least one supporter of this document stated clearly that the outcome of this document would not change their mind about TDD vs ACT. I also heard at least one supporter of this document questioning if this document would change the mind of other individuals in the Task Force. If even the proponents of this document are saying that this document is not likely to change their mind, would it not make more sense for the Task Force to focus on its objectives?
Ragnar
From: Veloso Cauce Gumersindo, EE-352 <000045712ce4d5b2-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:000045712ce4d5b2-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 7:50 AM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [802.3_ISAAC] Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study
Dear 802. 3dm participants, As announced on both the May 1st and May 16th 802. 3dm interim meetings, here are the details for the next steps on our joint comparison study. In the first step, we would like to agree on a list of criteria to address ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart Prioritize security for external emails:
Confirm sender and content safety before clicking links or opening attachments
Report Suspicious <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/CRVmXkqW!ui3XGV9YrjXb26H8ef3agFB4uuqyA84aZI8vUdRsZLdA5XJpq3XI-quaoI8BR2xZ7ngfvd19T51rolgLdC6bMZb4i9ewPjmo7GhfsgqTaf1HpwsD_QKVFA_-bjCG05gC7Rw_Q6d-i8I$>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear 802.3dm participants,
As announced on both the May 1st and May 16th 802.3dm interim meetings, here are the details for the next steps on our joint comparison study.
1. In the first step, we would like to agree on a list of criteria to address before discussing the fulfillment of any criteria. In the attachment you find a PROPOSAL for the comparison criteria and their metrics. Please take careful look at them and evaluate if additional criteria or metrics are needed.
2. Send us your updated list (if any) until May 26th EOB. We know this is short notice, however, this only identifies the criteria deemed important and not their fulfillment – for which we will then dedicate more time.
3. We start on May 28th 15:00 CET with a Kick-Off meeting.
* Introduce a proposal for the structure for the final document which shall result from our efforts.
* Check on the collected criteria and discuss the collected input.
* Next steps on the proposed items to elaborate fulfillment details.
1. Starting on June 4th we would then initiate a weekly series till July 23rd. Each week we discuss criteria fulfillment based on the incoming proposals shared with the group prior to the meetings.
2. Step by step completion/creation of the comparison document.
If you would like to participate in this meeting, please reply to either me or Kirsten (Kirsten.matheus@xxxxxx<mailto:Kirsten.matheus@xxxxxx>) and you will receive a dedicated meeting invite (Teams-Link) or just join with the following link at the dedicated time:
Jetzt an der Besprechung teilnehmen<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__teams.microsoft.com_l_meetup-2Djoin_19-253ameeting-5FOGFkZTkwYjAtM2U1Mi00YTM4LWE0MTAtYjI5MmIzNDdkMTUz-2540thread.v2_0-3Fcontext-3D-257b-2522Tid-2522-253a-2522ce849bab-2Dcc1c-2D465b-2Db62e-2D18f07c9ac198-2522-252c-2522Oid-2522-253a-2522b75c5cd0-2Dc744-2D4e12-2D8a0b-2D06993a20a0ae-2522-257d&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=QMieZXCXqGCMU_AW-asvPhVx2CaUCmfP6pVlEunqqxU&e=>
Besprechungs-ID: 337 645 339 451 3
Kennung: 9XF9JW7a
You are welcome to send your input on the comparison items also if you are not able to join the meeting.
We are looking forward to your responses.
Thank you and best regards.
Gumersindo Veloso
P.s: For those not present at the last meetings, this is the motivation:
* Currently, two technical proposals are competing within IEEE 802.3dm.
* This documents aims to compare the two proposals and their rationales in order to provide an overview on the key properties and the different opinions on them.
* It may serve as a “technically qualified overview at a glance” reference for individuals wanting to understand and form their own opinion.
* The intention with this comparison document is
* to clarify where there are agreements and disagreements.
* to make the disagreements understandable.
* This document
* does not present a unified opinion.
* does not favor one proposal over the other.
* The authors prepare this document with the best intention to present an unbiased reference.
--
BMW Group
Gumersindo Veloso Cauce
EE-352
Systemfunktionen, Halbleiter, Vernetzungstechnologien Max-Diamandstr. 5
80937 München
Postanschrift:
80788 München
Tel: +49-89-382-36389<tel:+49%2089%2038236389>
Mobile: +49-151-601-36389<tel:+49%201516%200136389>
Mail: gumersindo.veloso@xxxxxx<mailto:gumersindo.veloso@xxxxxx>
Web: http://www.bmwgroup.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bmwgroup.com_&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=5igwW92ZsUVBAEtyUxrY3ysl86xkJpLOVGiCvs9eS1c&e=>
[cid:ii_19712ffe3d14ce8e91]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft Vorstand/Board of Management: Oliver Zipse (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Jochen Goller, Ilka Horstmeier, Walter Mertl, Milan Nedeljković, Joachim Post, Frank Weber Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Norbert Reithofer Sitz und Registergericht/Domicile and Court of Registry: München HRB 42243
----------------------------------------------------------------
[https://facebook.com/BMWGroup]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__facebook.com_BMWGroup&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=XE0nPLU4dU4B95749z-7XnoelvRVUaSombJ3PRCRj30&e=>[https://www.youtube.com/user/BMWGroupView]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_BMWGroupView&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=sNjKGVqpzfjfTQr9ssPp6a-hG5nAdSzPz1v9aBGuFXc&e=>[https://twitter.com/BMWGroup]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_BMWGroup&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=CFWz7JNcn5KflYgPHCuiWOZx6Cz7O7STkmHOJRdirQI&e=>[https://plus.google.com/+BMWGroup]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plus.google.com_-2BBMWGroup&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=2fKIOPSM_ti1kL5eGkUjNx8WMhg_9tn1__dFf61koLM&e=>[https://de.linkedin.com/company/bmw]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__de.linkedin.com_company_bmw&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=cfxLqJNStswKU8TMgAl4UQoceqvSyCwNxpVuoih39FA&e=>[https://www.xing.com/company/bmwgroup]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.xing.com_company_bmwgroup&d=DwMFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=rz-fXGnWYK-ZVP78NS_1w_1k0CmU7E5TDYKHunRHPWY&e=>
________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__listserv.ieee.org_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DSTDS-2D802-2D3-2DISAAC-26A-3D1&d=DwQFBA&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=hiHgBSUj2X0k3TORVxe0NCZAlJs6SEDHhwLDz5m9MbY&m=ZD523fX62ZOQtoD15CYyhxg189THQbPlZbj3PIq7DtYZC6Mv_-jfuoZEOyCqd3mR&s=V0nvRYdMzxID1SeEtH7JjD8Du6fSVeaU5WbONnqOJ6E&e=>
________________________________
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
________________________________
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
________________________________
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here<https://us2.proofpointessentials.com/app/report_spam.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&report=1&type=easyspam&k=k1&payload=53616c7465645f5ffebd5d8b79b35e21542235b8c927c72a51127854f524c20a6957dbf48a8809484efa2c1ce6b2ffe71e8aca260788f648e0ce98f085c6dbda0e8103b2ae9dcd559dd1e380be2270878ea2161959dcd0157dff647397aa8d42067b6198d5513d22349a32b9b59171f35646d524aa1e97cc33e05caacc1d1adc3f6d99f310983b328364565cf1130b62a0233d44d6f5acba9afc00cba782c448> to report this email as spam.
________________________________________________________________________
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
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click
here to report this email as spam.
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