Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear Kirsten,
I appreciate the engagement on the reflector. I do not recall stating that GMSLE or ACT+GMSLE is backwards compatible with the technology known as GMSL3/2. If you can point to a contribution or email where I made the statement that GMSLE or ACT+GMSLE was
backwards compatible with GMSL3/2 please share the link to the error and I will correct it. In the absence of such supporting material, I trust we can conclude the matter settled and focus our efforts on moving forward productively and building consensus
for our respective proposals on the reflector and in IEEE meetings.
regards,
Joseph L. "Jay" Cordaro
Affiliation: Analog Devices
From: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <Kirsten.Matheus@xxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:01 PM To: Cordaro, Jay <Jay.Cordaro@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: AW: Invitation to the 802.3dm comparison study
Hello Jay,
thank you for your response and explanation. From my understanding of both your’s and TJ’s email I get that there is some overlap and reuse between GMSL and ACT. I see that there has indeed been a misunderstanding from my side concerning the frequency overlap. Your plot shows a full frequency overlap of both US and DS directions. Furthermore, I understand that there can be overlap in product specific features (power supply, power delivery and lane configuration), and some reuse in the PMA (e.g. not the same line rate but similar), while the PCS is different, including scrambling, line coding and FEC.
So, I hope that we can agree that, while there is some overlap, but nothing close to backwards compatibility between ACT and GMSL (as the name GMSLE suggests). I find that the overlap is in a range that many other two different technologies might have. Could you share a detailed estimate on how much additional chip area a GMSL 2/3 PHY would need if it tried to accommodate ACT in a dual mode version and vice versa? In % and mm²? As TJ mentioned the coaxial media considerations, would you mind sharing with the group the link lengths that GMSL 2 and 3 currently support for STP and Coax at 3Gbps, 6Gbps and 12Gbps line rates?
Your email, and the issue of naming something GMSLE in general, raises an additional concern to the one that the naming is misleading potential customers into believing that GMSLE is backwards compatible to GMSL. If your intention is as forward looking as you state, why tie the naming to something that today (and for some time in the future) is a single vendor technology, whose trademark and IP is owned by a single company, which has a significant market share in the Automotive SerDes market on top (according to your own account)? The naming GMSLE is marketing for GMSL, whether rightly so or not. Do you seriously want to claim that you do NOT expect any advantages for your affiliation in the existing SerDes market based on this? I am surprised that the leadership responsible for this group is not going haywire on this. For me this whole naming endeavor is not only a breach of the IEEE code of Ethics, it is also an antitrust concern, to which I herewith formally object.
And one more item. GMSL is a proprietary technology today. All implementations and real life experiences with it (or its proprietary competitors) are under NDA. So while, of course, all positive comments are not a concern, I wonder how anyone can be ok with considering to adopt something similar to a technology (tied together by naming!) on which anything critical can actually not be shared!
Kind regards,
Kirsten
Von: Cordaro, Jay <Jay.Cordaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Kirsten, I'd like to clarify a few points. Although it does not preclude other approaches to handle the high speed and low speed overlap in ACT+GMSLE, the same echo subtraction approach utilized in GMSL3/2 may be used. While the 9b10b
encoding of GMSL2 allows a high-pass filter to be applied at the high-speed receiver to suppress low frequency echo residue from the low-speed transmitter without introducing baseline wander, there are several techniques which could be employed with ACT+GMSLE
including high-pass filtering with a baseline wander compensation circuit. Rather than focusing on backward compatibility, my intention is to help define the standard to support "forward compatibility," enabling the same IP to be used with both an FDD CSI-2 based SerDes
today and an ACT+GMSLE Ethernet MAC interface PHY in the future. the attached picture shows in log frequency scale the output PSD of both sides of the link with the technology known as GMSL2 in the forward, high speed, 3GBaud NRZ and reverse, low speed, 187.5Mbps NRZ directions overlaid on the same graph. The PHY was operating in single-ended coax mode. The PHY is transmitting random data and is not in a test mode. I have overlaid the one-sided single-ended PSD of the proposed technology known as ACT+GMSLE in the downstream and upstream directions with the transmit levels, 64B65B encoding ,and Baud rates proposed. Random, scrambled data was generated.
From: Matheus Kirsten, EE-352 <00004506adf647e4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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”.
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
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>
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
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>
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
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>
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
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
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>
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
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.
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:
-- Systemfunktionen, Halbleiter, Vernetzungstechnologien
Postanschrift: 80788 München Tel: +49-89-382-36389
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 |