Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802.3_ISAAC] AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study

Hello TJ,

 

thank you for the response and explanation. The problem with doing a comparison by yourself (including together with people of the same opinion) is that it does not have the same value as a comparison done together with those who have a different opinion. A one-sided comparison becomes a never ending story of more of the same because you emphasize where you are strong anyway. In a one-sided comparison you do not have to listen and you bypass the chance of truly being listened to. And in the end, this it does not help to build consensus with those who have a different opinion.  

 

The core chance in a comparison together is not in the results, it is in the process on how to get to the results. When you try to evaluate how to compare apples with apples on all accounts, this is where you find the disconnects.

 

Can it be that you are afraid ACT is not up to dual-sided  comparison? 😉

 

Kind regards,

 

Kirsten

 

 

 

 

Your own comparison is more marketing along the lines that you believe to be important and true, but that are not . The main output from doing a comparison together with the people who have different is not in the results as such, it is in discussing the metrices for the comparison  

 

Von: TJ Houck <thouck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2025 03:16
An: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <Kirsten.Matheus@xxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study

 

Hi Kirsten,

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation that ACT and GMSL have “no overlap or reuse.” As shown in the presentations linked here and here, there are numerous technical commonalities between ACT and GMSL, ranging from lane configurations and coding structures to power delivery, signaling schemes, and coaxial physical media considerations. These similarities are precisely why the ACT/GMSLE naming was adopted: to reflect the convergence of lessons learned, engineering approaches, and practical deployment experience.

 

While you suggest that labeling this ACT/GMSLE is “pure marketing,” the intent is precisely the opposite: to transparently demonstrate how this specification builds upon proven foundations and addresses real industry needs without fragmenting the ecosystem or reinventing core elements. Based on my direct experience with GMSL designs, asserting there is “zero reuse” simply due to a difference in duplexing method overlooks the broader system-level alignment that is both documented and deliberately leveraged.

 

Regarding the comparison effort, this is exactly what my co-author and I initiated in our recent presentation, and we intend to continue that work at the July meeting. I see no need to start a separate, parallel effort. I am open to constructive feedback and plan to incorporate additional inputs into the evolving comparison table. I agree with your point that data-driven analysis is key to progress—but that analysis should reflect technical reality, not reinforce artificial distinctions when industry already recognizes strong continuity between ACT and GMSL.

 

I remain committed to advancing the work based on objective metrics and practical tradeoffs. That’s exactly what the ACT/GMSLE proposal seeks to enable—not a marketing campaign but a recognition of technical evolution and convergence.

 

My co-author and I will continue to compare proposals based on their technical merits and deployability, and we welcome collaboration. But let’s also stay honest about where the similarities exist—they matter to implementers, and they should matter to us.

 

Best regards,

TJ

 

 

From: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <00004506adf647e4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 8:43 AM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [802.3_ISAAC] WG: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study

 

p. s. You end your email with “so thank you for clarifying that you are open to changing your mind and support ACT/GMSLE if presented with good arguments”. The dm group would not be in the situation it is, if the individuals supporting ACT and

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

Prioritize security for external emails:

Confirm sender and content safety before clicking links or opening attachments

    Report Suspicious    ‌

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

p.s.

 

You end your email with “so thank you for clarifying that you are open to changing your mind and support ACT/GMSLE if presented with good arguments”.  

 

  1. The dm group would not be in the situation it is, if the individuals supporting ACT and the individuals supporting TDD, did not believe that they each had good arguments (though I like the “if” in your statement, but that is a different matter 😉 ). Part of the openness to change your mind is the willingness to listen. This is what the comparison effort is about: To find metrices that allow a direct comparison on an apple to apple basis, leaving marketing pitches aside. Bringing together a lot of what has already been presented and fill the gaps in a way that helps to understand where the disconnect is. Maybe this allows the group to advance. That is what this is all about, to find constructive means to move the group forward. I would also have liked to see this as an official adhoc, however, that was not my/our decision. It is NOT the goal to make any judgement in the comparison. The opinion on which criteria is seen as how important should stay with every individual looking at the data and the rationales. I agree that to achieve something meaningful requires effort and time. Nevertheless, if you have good arguments that you think they withstand a direct multi-sided comparison, bring them into the discussion. I would like to hear them.

 

  1. In respect to marketing: I have compared the technical parameters of ACT with those of GMSL, which you find summarized in the table below. As far as I can see, there is no overlap or reuse between GMSL 2/3 and ACT, not even in the duplexing method. If someone wants to implement a dual port ACT/GMSL PHY, it would be two PHYs next to each other. However, you call your proposal ACT/GMSLE (also in your cited comment above).  Calling something GMSLE causes the association that it is closely related to GMSL (there is NO question on this), if not  that there is backwards compatibility between the two. While I understand that backwards compatibility is nice to have, looking at the parameters in the table, it does not exist between ACT and GMSL. Using “GSMLE” has thus to be considered as pure marketing. I therefore recommend to drop the GMSLE naming. If ACT was as good as it claims, why threaten the credibility of ACT (and everyone supporting it) with an association that it cannot hold? Furthermore, I think it conflicts with the IEEE code of Ethics.  

 

Again, if you are convinced that ACT withstands the direct comparison to the TDD proposal, support the comparison effort with constructive input.

 

Kind regards,

 

Kirsten

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025 09:14
An: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study

 

Hello Ragnar,

 

I never ever responded to Amir’s question with “No, I would not change my mind whatsoever”, because that is against my beliefs. I might have said “No, this is not the point (meaning it is the wrong question), the comparison is not about me.” It is your misinterpretation that that means, I would not change my mind. I would kindly asked you to stop spreading such personal allegations on the reflector. I find that disrespectful.

 

Kind regards,

 

Kirsten

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Von: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025 00:22
An: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <Kirsten.Matheus@xxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [EXTERNAL] RE: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study

 

Hi Kirsten, First, I look forward to getting answers to the questions in my email from Thursday. I would also like to encourage you and Gumersindo to update your presentation for New Orleans to match what was presented at the meeting. Gumersindo

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

Prioritize security for external emails:

Confirm sender and content safety before clicking links or opening attachments

    Report Suspicious    ‌

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi Kirsten,

 

First, I look forward to getting answers to the questions in my email from Thursday. I would also like to encourage you and Gumersindo to update your presentation for New Orleans to match what was presented at the meeting. Gumersindo made important updates to the presentation to clarify that the intent with this work was not to bypass the 802.3dm Task Force.

 

Regarding your question about what I meant when stating “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 was referring to your answer to Amir’s question if you would be willing to change your mind about TDD and ACT/GMSLE based on the proposed effort. Your answer to this question was “NO” and you followed up with the question to Amir if he would change his mind. At this point, the chair stopped the discussion, but I asked Amir later and he told me that he is absolutely open to changing his mind if presented with convincing arguments (and that he also communicated this to you in a private email). I was not the only one taken back by your clear “NO” answer to Amir’s question, so thank you for clarifying that you are open to changing your mind and support ACT/GMSLE if presented with good arguments.

 

Ragnar

 

From: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <Kirsten.Matheus@xxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2025 1:12 PM
To: Ragnar Jonsson <rjonsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study

 

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

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

Prioritize security for external emails:

Confirm sender and content safety before clicking links or opening attachments

    Report Suspicious    ‌

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

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>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2025 18:52
An: 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    ‌

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>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 7:50 AM
To: 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    ‌

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.
    1. Introduce a proposal for the structure for the final document which shall result from our efforts.
    2. Check on the collected criteria and discuss the collected input.
    3. Next steps on the proposed items to elaborate fulfillment details.
  4. 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.
  5. 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) 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

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
Mobile: +49-151-601-36389
Mail: gumersindo.veloso@xxxxxx
Web: http://www.bmwgroup.com/

 


----------------------------------------------------------------
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/BMWGrouphttps://www.youtube.com/user/BMWGroupViewhttps://twitter.com/BMWGrouphttps://plus.google.com/+BMWGrouphttps://de.linkedin.com/company/bmwhttps://www.xing.com/company/bmwgroup

 

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

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