| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Looks better now. Thanks. Yair From: Yseboodt, Lennart [mailto:lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL Updated version attached, incorporating comments from Yair and Chad.
From: Chad Jones (cmjones) <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx> Mutual ID is the term we invented for AT and I think it is appropriate to keep it in BT. Additionally, classification is used
to establish mutual identification between the PSE and the PD to discover each others’ Type.
This text: The requested Class of the PD is the Class the PD advertises during Physical Layer classification, and represents the maximum power, as defined in Table 145–24 and Table 145–25,
that a PD shall draw across all input voltages. I had a similar comment and I agree with what you did here but I think you deleted a relevant piece of information: “The requested Class of the PD is the Class a PD advertises
during Physical Layer classification when connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE;”. The ‘connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE’ phrase struck me as odd at first but then it became clear that this is a way of saying request the max power on the physical layer. I
think it is important to leave in. So I would say add the phrase “when connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE” back to your sentence. Chad Jones Tech Lead, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force From: "Yseboodt, Lennart" <lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hello, We saw significant changes to the PD classification text due to the Clause split, on top of a nice cleanup action by Heath adopted in January. Some rectification and further cleanup attached. Comments welcomed. Kind regards, Lennart |