Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Colleagues,
I'm working to develop a consensus response to D3 sponsor ballot
comment#i-122 addressing test fixture specifications. The TF reviewed
comment#122 presentation at 11:30 AM today inviting 802.3bm participation in the
review in order to provide information prior to comment
resolution ( http://www.ieee802.org/3/bj/public/jan14/diminico_3bj_01_0114.pdf).
As many wanting to participate in consensus discussion are finding
difficulty in allocating time, the comment will be considered last in D3
sponsor ballot allowing time for discussion. In the meantime, we will use e-mail
develop consensus response.
STATUS CONSENSUS RESPONSE
At this time, I believe we have consensus for the following;
(1)>>Cable assembly test fixtures (MCB's) can be designed to meet the
92.11.3.2 Mated test fixtures return loss specification. Therefore
no change to 92.11.3.2 Mated test fixtures return loss specification.
(2)>>Given the 92.11.3.2 Mated test fixtures return loss
specification can be met,
independent specifications of TP2/TP3 test fixture return loss are not
necessary.
Please reply with your interest in participating in discussion on this
topic...
Regards, Chris
In a message dated 1/20/2014 6:34:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mbrown@xxxxxxx writes:
|