| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
OK, so the path of various solutions has gotten convoluted, and Heath pointed out to me offline that we need to straighten out Lennart & Andrea’s different parts. This combination seems to work: 1.4.418aa Type 3 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 6, or a dual-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 4 on both Modes during Physical
Layer classification, implements Multiple-Event classification, and accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause 145). 1.4.418ac Type 4 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 7 or One minor thing is that we can expect a comment on both of these that it reads like any single-sig class 1 to 6 (type 3, or 8 for type 4) is a type 3,4 PD; while a dual-sig requires the additional features listed. The English doesn’t
parse uniquely like a logic equation. What I was trying to wrap my head around was whether there was a reordering or rephrasing that made it clear that the logic was: ( (SS = class 7 + class 8) + (DS = maxclass 5) ) * (features). Breaking these into two sentences might work: 1.4.418aa Type 3 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 6, or a dual-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 4 on both Modes during Physical Layer classification. Additionally, the PD implements Multiple-Event classification,
and accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause 145). 1.4.418ac Type 4 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 7 or Class 8, or a dual-signature PD that request Class 5 on at least one Mode during Physical Layer classification. Additionally, the PD implements Multiple-Event classification,
is capable of Data Link Layer classification, and accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause 145). From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
This does not fix the problem, because both type 3 and type 4 still include single-sig class 6. Add to that, that this is trying to make the definition complex. I suggest we stick to fixing the type 4 definition, and your suggestion below (on type 3) may provide the fix, but it isn’t readily apparent. The problem is that dual-sig which classify as class 5 or 6 on a pairset are outside the type 4 definition. We should focus on including those into type 4. -george From: Andrea Agnes [mailto:andrea.agnes181@xxxxxxxxx]
ok I agree but dual signature PD Class 5 would became both Type 3 and Type 4. I suggest accordingly modification of Type 3 definition: 1.4.418aa Type 3 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 6, or a dual-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 4 on both Modes during Physical
Layer classification, implements Multiple-Event classification, and accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause 145). 2017-10-20 11:54 GMT+02:00 Lennart Yseboodt <lennartyseboodt@xxxxxxxxx>:
|