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

Re: [RE] DRAFT Objectives 09/30/2004


802.3 will not specify error rates in the application layer, we will need something a little more appropriate than pops and flashes.

Mike


Please respond to "IEEE 802.3 Residential Ethernet"<stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG>

Sent by:        owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG  

To:        STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
cc:        
Subject:        Re: [RE] DRAFT Objectives 09/30/2004


I actually read the "zero packet loss" item as a statement of error rate--an
error rate that I believe is unreasonable.  If it indeed refers to
"Guaranteed bandwidth allocation" then it must be restated.  I agree with
John Gildred that this is a requirement.  As for error rate, let me state
what I think is the minimum requirement from the end user perspective:  In
streaming a high definition a/v stream (24 megabits/second) there should not
be any visible/audible errors more often than once every six hours (each
error equivalent to an audible "pop" or a visible "flash").  This is an
error rate that has been used in the CE industry and is a minimum standard
with the typical error rate expected to be much better.
jnf
_________________________
John Nels Fuller
24034 NE 29th Street
Sammamish, WA   98074-5468   USA
Mobile phone: +1 206 409 0338
Home: +1 425 836 5102
email: jfuller@computer.org

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of dirceu
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:46 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] DRAFT Objectives 09/30/2004

Actually, people in the meeting was sensitive to this point. The way we
HOPED we had captured that was in the "zero packet loss for isochronous
traffic" bullet in the current list...
Dirceu Cavendish
NEC Labs America
10080 North Wolfe Road Suite SW3-350
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-863-6041 Fax: 408-863-6099

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of John Gildred
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:13 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] DRAFT Objectives 09/30/2004
"Guaranteed bandwidth allocation as isochronous channels may not be
interrupted by other traffic at any time"
By the way, this is true over a single link, not just in the bridged case.
Several applications fighting for bandwidth over a single link will need a
bandwidth allocation mechanism.
-John Gildred
Vice President of Engineering
Pioneer Research Center USA
A Division of Pioneer Electronics
101 Metro Drive, Suite 264
San Jose, California 95110
john@pioneer-pra.com
(408) 437-1800 x105
(408) 437-1717 Fax
(510) 295-7770 Mobile
On Sep 30, 2004, at 10:27 PM, Richard Brand wrote:
>  John:
> Regarding your comment, what would you offer as a bulletized version
> of your objective? Richard
>
>  John Gildred wrote:
>
>
>  I think the issue of guaranteed bandwidth allocation is important and
> perhaps not captured in the list. It needs to be stated outright that
> an isochronous channel may not be interrupted by other traffic at any
> time.
>
> -John Gildred
> Vice President of Engineering
> Pioneer Research Center USA
> A Division of Pioneer Electronics
> 101 Metro Drive, Suite 264
> San Jose, California 95110
> john@pioneer-pra.com
> (408) 437-1800 x105
> (408) 437-1717 Fax
> (510) 295-7770 Mobile
>
> On Sep 30, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Steve Carlson wrote:
>
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > Attached is the PDF of the RESG Draft Objectives 09/30/2004.
> >
> > David, can you please post these to the Website?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Steven B. Carlson
> > President
> > Chair, IEEE 802.3 Residential Ethernet Study Group Secretary, IEEE
> > 802.3 CSMA/CD Working Group http://www.ieee802.org/3/
> > High Speed Design, Inc.
> > 11929 NW Old Quarry Road
> > Portland, OR 97229
> > 503.626.4206
> > FAX 503.626.4206
> > scarlson@hspdesign.com<RESG_draft_objectives_09_30_04.pdf>
> <rbrand.vcf>