| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I’d think just latency is good enough for an objective. When we get to the actual specifications we will need to be more precise… George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
On Nov 4, 2021, at 7:23 PM, Dayin Xu <00000daf9e58c36f-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi All, In our last meeting, we had a lot of good discussions on the latency objective and we ended up with a draft latency objective as below “ Support a low latency mode of operation with ≤ 1.5usec latency for constrained link segment specifications (e.g., insertion loss or noise)” Personally I like this wording because it links the low latency to constrained link segment in IEEE 802.3 language. There is one point that is not quite clear to me is that “ ≤ 1.5usec latency” is for transmit, or receive or the sum of transmit and receive. Based upon what we have discussed in last meeting, this “ ≤ 1.5usec latency” should be the sum
of transmit and receive latency. I would like to propose the following modification as highlighted in red to make it clear. “ Support a low latency mode of operation with ≤ 1.5usec
of the sum of transmit and receive
latency for constrained link segment specifications (e.g., insertion loss or noise)” Any comments here? Dayin XU | 徐达银 Principal Engineer | Rockwell Automation +86-21-61288390 | dyxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 |