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

Re: [802.3_ISAAC] Questions on "boyer_sharma-3dm_xx_05-14-25_2.pdf"

Hello Conrad,
This email is from Both Rohit and Rich.  We both worked on this reply.

The reason the IL changed is that we are working to a compromise in 802.3dm as a new asynchronous technology of what is feasible from the IC transceiver and what is doable by links.  Our goal is to find out what is doable within reason so that is why we work and collaborate with as many people as want to work together for good balance in transceiver technology and what may come in the future of links.

For the RL, we have evaluated many different realistic topologies from measured links.  What we mean by "realistic" is from our experience of implementing complete links into vehicles.  We realize that there maybe cases that do not meet in the <400 MHz and those cases need to be examined as to applicability and what could be done to make them meet.

We will put together a presentation for the next 802.3dm meeting and show RL data from some link topologies.

Best Regards,
           - Rohit and Rich


-----Original Message-----
From: Conrad Zerna <conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 4:19 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_ISAAC] Questions on "boyer_sharma-3dm_xx_05-14-25_2.pdf"

CAUTION: This email comes from a non Aptiv email account Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Hi Rich, Rohit,

I was wondering about the specific reason, that the IL formula change from
Insertion loss(f) ≤ 0.0015 - 0.001325*f- 0.3785*√f - 1.1785/ √f (dB)    in March to
Insertion loss(f) ≤ 0.0015 - 0.001325*f- 0.3645*√f - 1.1785/ √f (dB)   now in May.
You said, it was due to "technology". What specific requirement/limitation of technology is that?

I also wanted to reiterate my comment from March, that the topologies in slides 3 here
https://ieee802.org/3/dm/public/0325/boyer_sharma-3dm_xx_03-10-25_RevB.pdf
are not suitable to validate a proposed RL limit, especially in the lower frequency range.
If you have evaluated your new RL curve from May against other topology simulations?

Thanks,
    Conrad


________________________________________________________________________
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