## 2 Background and Related Work
### Overview on TSN Related Surveys  
TSN, as a large and continuously evolving set of standards, poses challenges for adopters seeking to understand the state of the art, identify missing features, and effectively utilize the standards for their specific use cases. Consequently, several surveys have been conducted to provide a comprehensive overview of TSN, which we summarize in Table 1. These surveys encompass a range of approaches, including general TSN overviews [2, 4, 5] and more specialized surveys focusing on specific aspects [3, 6, 7, 8]. Among the general TSN overview surveys, [PERSON] et al. [4] stands out for categorizing TSN standards into five topics, such as flow concept, synchronization, management, control, and integrity. The survey also explores ultra low-latency (ULL) applications, their latency and jitter requirements, and shaping techniques beyond the TSN standard e.g., Burst Limiting Shaper (BLS). A distinguishing feature of this survey is its inclusion of TSN alongside Detnet and 5G, providing insights into standardization efforts and research directions. In contrast, [PERSON] et al. [5] groups TSN standards into four clusters based on their targets: timing and synchronization, reliability, low bounded latency, and resource management. This categorization aids network designers in selecting the relevant parts based on their specific use cases. Additionally, the survey provides an overview of Ethernet concepts, including the IEEE 802.1Q standard, which encompasses both the TSN and pre-TSN aspects. The paper also references studies that explore TSN applications in various fields with a focus on industrial automation and automotive industries. Notably, this survey discusses the merits and challenges of TSN, scoring nine requirementsand highlighting areas where TSN excels, such as bandwidth and scalability, as well as areas where it has limitations, such as confidentiality, integrity, and ease of configuration. The authors also identify configuration synthesis as a demanding research direction. In response to the identified need for more detailed understanding and insights, our survey aims to complement the existing TSN-related landscape by addressing the challenges pertaining to schedule synthesis and providing an in-depth exploration of related work. Contrary to our work, [PERSON] et al. [2] categorizes works into three main topics: TSN core functions, network management, and resources for researchers. The survey provides a summary of studies related to the internal functioning of TSN, explores the interaction between entities within a TSN domain, and offers information on existing projects, tutorials, hardware, and software frameworks relevant to TSN research. It also includes a statistical analysis to identify research trends and areas that require further investigation. There are other notable works that focus on specific aspects of the TSN landscape. For instance, in [8], the basics of traffic planning in time-triggered networking are explained, covering concepts like time-triggered communication, constraints, and the relationship between problem complexity, the number of frames/nodes, and constraints. The paper also discusses the evolution of planning tasks from classical time-triggered communication to TSN. Additionally, it explores the trade-off between schedule calculation time and the number of windows to schedule when using a general-purpose solver like SMT. In [7], TAS is compared to Burst Limiting Shaper (BLS) and Peristaltic Shaper (PS), a slightly different version of Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (CQF). However, this study lacks coverage of important works published after 2015. A more recent study, [6], compares two shapers, TAS and Adaptive Time-Aware Shaper (ATS). It provides a general overview of TSN with detailed information on ATS and TAS parameters, state variables, and main algorithms. The study proposes and evaluates two algorithms, adaptive bandwidth sharing and adaptive slotted window, to make TAS adaptive to sporadic traffic.