Re: [Coin] Last Call for the use case draft

["Kunze, Ike" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

See below for my comments ([IK]).

Cheers,
Ike

> On 28. Nov 2023, at 15:57, David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 28 Nov 2023, at 3:23, Kunze, Ike wrote:
> 
>>> In 4.1.2, some challenging cases require sensor feedback in the microsecond range. Examples include controlling interferometers (e.g telescopes, LIGO-like systems). Would be useful to explicitly either include or exclude such things from this use case.
>> [IK] Microsecond range definitely sounds likes something worth discussing.
>> However, I am not familiar with the examples you describe and I am not sure if one of my co-authors is.
>> Hence, I am leaning towards explicitly excluding them; do you happen to have useful references that we could use for this purpose?
>> Alternatively, we could include these examples if someone with sufficient expertise would be willing to provide some corresponding text.
>> Is that something you would be interested in?
> Let’s exclude them as they likely actually represent a whole additional use case (large scale scientific instruments). Maybe a sentence like “shorter feedback requirements may exist in other use cases, such as interferometry or high-energy physics” could be added although I don’t think it’s important.

[IK] Good suggestion. I will add that.

>>> I’m not sure whether the switch from PLCs to more software-focused control devices has any effect on the things you want to cover in this use case.
>> [IK] You are probably right in that the switch itself does not have a direct effect.
>> However, the switch often goes hand in hand with "moving everything" to the cloud which is why we still have this explicit line of argument.
>> I think that we could change the text to better reflect your comment, but I do not have a straightforward fix in mind.
>> Would you like to see this addressed or is it something that you could live with if we do not change it?
>> 
> None of my comments are blocking. However, you brought up the switch to software as important, so an alternative is just tone that down or eliminate it as a defining characteristic of the use case.

[IK] Okay, good to know.
I will still try to address your comment and should have a bit more time to think about a fix.

>>> Section 4.2
>>> 
>>> in 4.2.2 what is “packet-based sub-sampling”?
>> [IK] I have added some text to clarify this:
>> “using packet-based sub-sampling, i.e., only forwarding every n-th packet”.
>> Does that make it clear?
> Yes. Although sampling “every n-th packet” would result in a failing grade in any course on statistical sampling :-)

[IK] Good thing I am not enrolled in such a course at the moment ;)
I get your point, though, and will try to broaden the discussion a bit.