| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi George, It will be problematic not to accept the proposed change. We had similar comment in the draft body last cycle if I remember correctly on the same issue that was accepted. It will not make sense to have a correct text and wrong definition. The current definition with simultaneously is good only for implementations that has no other choice but to power on simultaneously. In the real world, the majority of the applications will do a wide range of powering sequences from almost zero to almost any realistic numbers. That is why
“simultaneously” is limiting and more important, incorrect. Yair From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL Yair - the text relating to simultaneously powering has been accepted for a while. I would not support changing it. George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D. CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications 310-920-3860
Hi George, In your proposed text: “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).” The use of “simultaneously” is confusing. Some readers will interpret that you must turn both modes at exactly the same time which is definitely not the intent, especial for dual signature PDs. I suggest the following to remove the word “simultaneously”. We had the same issue in the draft (main body) in previous releases and we fix it in this way. Yair From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL 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>:
|