| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello Georg, Hello all, in principal I agree with your proposed change. Whatever we develop should work under automotive conditions. However I see the objectives as a “bucket” and therefore before we agree on this single change, we should look at the
other objectives too. There are other objectives stating 10Gbps as well and we may need to put together speed grades and cabling options individually.
As I will show in my slides on the call tomorrow, other objectives need to be re-considered as well: ·
“Support a data rate of 10 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS service interface” change to “Support a data rate of 10/5/2,5 Gb/s at the MAC/PLS
service interface” ·
Define appropriate cabling options to be considered for each intended speed grade. For now this is just the short listing of further objectives I would like to consider to change as well, the details and
arguments will be presented tomorrow. Gruß/Regards, Stefan Buntz Stefan Buntz Mercedes-Benz Cars Development, Daimler AG Group Research & Advanced Engineering Safeguarding Hard & Software
HPC: U059 – Dep.: RD/FEQ Phone: +49 731 505-2089
Mobil: +49 176 30 90 51 44
Fax: +49 711 305 216 45 95
E-Mail:
stefan.buntz@xxxxxxxxxxx Address for visitors: Buildung 10 Room 3.2.022 Wilhelm-Runge-Str. 11 D-89081 Ulm Germany Von: NATALIE WIENCKOWSKI [mailto:NWIENCKOWSKI@xxxxxxx]
George, I would prefer not to change this until we have another objective approved which includes 10 Gbps and a cabling type as we need 10 Gbps. Thanks, Natalie Wienckowski From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I was considering our objectives, and the expansion to include generalization on speeds and media types, and looking at what we had adopted that was specific. The 10Gbps rate for the MAC is necessary (and we’ll have to add new rates for any additional speeds), but the “operation in automotive environments” objective could be made generic. To make matters worse, right now it reflects a media choice that we don’t have a PHY or link segment objective for – “single pair shielded balanced copper cabling”. We have discussed
the generalization to using coax or twinax, and even optical PHYs – these would need their own “automotive environments” objectives, making the objectives clunky, and having this objective spell out more than it needs to. As a result, I think it would be better if we collapse the objective to refer only to the environment, and leave the media types and rates to their own objectives – each needing
to operate in an automotive environment. So, I would seek feedback on the following objective change: Change from: ·
Support operation at 10Gb/s in automotive environments (e.g., EMC, temperature) over single pair shielded balanced copper cabling. To: ·
Support operation in automotive environments (e.g., EMC, temperature). George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal Consultant CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications 1-310-920-3860 |