Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

Every accepted comment against D3.5 is added risk that we cannot hit July. Simple as that. My hope was that we would have the one customary comment from staff that the “draft meets all editorial requirements.”

 

Shame on me for being optimistic with this group.

 

 

Chad Jones

Tech Lead, Cisco Systems

Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force

Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3

From: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:35 AM
To: 4PPOE Reflector <STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

I don’t see how we delay anything.

The plane is to have meeting next week and address comments, update the draft and came with clean draft for July.

Since this addition is informative issue, I am sure that we will not have comments on it in July.

Yair

 

From: Chris Bullock (bullock) [mailto:00000b693072df40-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 4:35 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Hi Yair,

 

I don’t have a problem with the added text.  I just don’t think that adding the text has significant value, and I certainly don’t think adding the text is worth delaying publication of the standard by another 2 months.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

From: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:20 AM
To: Chris Bullock (bullock) <bullock@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

Hi Chris,

Questions:

1.       What is the problem with the added text?

2.       In any way it causes issues if it is just a link to Irev spec?

Yair

 

From: Chris Bullock (bullock) [mailto:00000b693072df40-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:07 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Hi Yair,

 

In the first sentence of my response below, I meant to say that I agree with everything you stated below except for the added text.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

From: Chris Bullock (bullock) <00000b693072df40-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:48 AM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

Hi Yair,

 

Yes, I agree with everything that you stated below, but where did you come up with MPS=3mA that you used in your example?  Why not use MPS=8mA for your example, given your logic that PD designer does not read the PSE section?  If I’m a PD designer, and I need to violate Iport_MPS, all I need to do is draw less than 10 mA, correct?  The actual parameters that the PD designer needs to be aware of to implement the feature that you describe are Ihold_min and Irev, both of which are clearly defined in the PSE section.

 

In this particular feature that you are describing, the argument that the PD designer does not read the PSE specification does not hold because the PD is manipulating a parameter of the PI in order to get the PSE to respond in a particular way.  I don’t understand how a PD designer could believe that he/she could implement such a feature without thoroughly reading and understanding the PSE requirements.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

From: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:17 AM
To: Chris Bullock (bullock) <bullock@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

Hi Chris,

 

Your input is not clear to me.

 

Are you saying that if a PD wants to be disconnected and present e.g. MPS=3mA, PSE may not disconnect him? How it is possible if for class 1-4 the PSE is required to disconnect at <4mA?

 

Now because of Irev that PD was not aware of it ,PD may not disconnect since now the current will be 4.3mA >4mA.

If PD was aware of Irev, than he could guarantee to be disconnected by setting Iport_MPS to <(4mA-1.3mA)=2.7mA (or other means).

Do you agree?

 

If Yes, my latest proposal for the added text to the PD MPS section: "IPort_MPS may be affected by Irev. See 145.2.10.4, 145.3.8.8.” will solve the problem.

Do you agree?

 

Yair

 

From: Chris Bullock (bullock) [mailto:00000b693072df40-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:03 AM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Hi Yair,

 

The MPS thresholds for a PD are different than the MPS thresholds for a PSE.  The PD cannot guarantee that the PSE will remove power simply by violating the PD MPS thresholds.

There is no way that a PD designer can create the feature that you are talking about without reading the PSE section.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

From: Lennart Yseboodt <lennartyseboodt@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:34 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

George makes a good point, 'implementation hints' are tricky to include in the standard - especially at this point.

 

Yair, we are updating the EA whitepaper on BT anyway to include the changes since D3.2. A big new section will be explaining reflected voltage / reverse current.

Would it be acceptable if we explain the MPS issue there (rather than in the spec)?

 

Kind regards,

 

Lennart

 

On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 18:56 +0000, George Zimmerman wrote:

Yair – all of these values are tutorial in nature.  There are no requirements in your proposed text, therefore they are completely advisory.

We write standards – the important thing to capture is what is required.  The information may be valuable to implementers, I don’t argue that. However, publish that elsewhere (for example, in an EA whitepaper) if you so desire.

 

George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal Consultant

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications

1-310-920-3860

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

From: Yair Darshan [mailto:YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:23 AM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

Hi George,

 

The value of the proposed text is much higher that you have described see why:

The issue is:

-PD operates in 3-pair mode with ideal diode bridge that has the backfeed issue. This means that whatever load is in the unpowered PSE alternative, it is reflected to the PD load and added up.

-PD wants to be powered off. As a result it sets its MPS to 3.9mA which means must be OFF. PD vendor may not be aware of the Irev spec since it is in the PSE spec.

-Now in this condition Irev=1.3mA will be added from the PSE to the PD MPS i.e. 3.9mA+1.3mA=5.2mA and PD will not be disconnected.

This is the problem.

The solution is that the PD vendor will take the 1.3mA in account of the MPS setting.

 

The problem is that the PD vendor is not aware of Irev since this is the PSE spec and many times as a response to comment we agree to add text to PD section to tell PD about parameters that affects the PD but appear in the PSE i.e. we said that the PD vendor get a PD spec and start to design without looking on PSE spec or aware of it which I believe it is a correct scenario.

 

By the way, during last meeting we change the PSE and PD spec to address similar issues concerning to the effect of Irev on other spec items and this is one of them.

 

I can never agree to a situation that you have a clear requirement in a PD for what to do regarding MPS (or other spec items) without telling the PD vendor that there is something waiting for him in the corner… in the PSE spec that is not mentioned in the PD spec that can make his PD uncompliant. I don’t see a reason to hide such critical information.

 

Yair

 

From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:36 PM
To: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Yair - the proposed text is purely advisory and informative. At this stage we should only be concerned with missing or incorrect requirements or correcting (preferably deleting) incorrect information. I just don’t see the point of adding more informative advice to the standard.

George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D.

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications

310-920-3860

 


On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Lennart,

I agree that it doesn’t affect the case when the PD is disconnected from the cable.

 

I was referring to the case that the PD is connected and wants power removal. The question if it is rare or not, is irrelevant since it is already in the spec and we need to address it somehow and meet it.

 

I agree that the solution can be that PDs that do want to have power removed can set their Iport_mps value for power removal to be lower than (4mA-1.3mA)=2.7mA. However, in order to make this clear to the PD vendor (since Irev is in the PSE section) I believe that we need to add text to the PD MPS section as follows (or equivalent):

 

Proposed remedy:

Add the following text in clause 145.3.9, page 222 text after line 49:

"When a PD is operating under 3-pair mode conditions, the value of IPort_MPS as seen by the PSE over the powered pair may increase by Irev (see See 145.2.10.4, 145.3.8.8 ). As a result, the PD may need to set IPort_MPS to alower value than IPort_MPS min to ensure power removal."

 

Yair

 

From: Lennart Yseboodt [mailto:00000b30a2081bcd-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 12:04 AM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] MPS issue due to the allowance for reflected voltage in 3-pair mode

 

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Hi Yair,

 

Your analysis is correct, the reverse current is added to the PDs own current.

 

I don't consider this an issue we need to do anything about however:

- it does not impair the primary function of MPS in any way (to remove power when the PD is disconnected)

- it only affects PDs that use the method of removing MPS in order to have the PSE remove power, I would say this is pretty rare;

- PDs that do want to have power removed can accommodate for the maximum 1.3mA of reverse current (draw less than 2.7mA of their own)

 

Note that reverse current only happens under 3-pair conditions, and then the 'must disconnect' current level is 4mA for PSEs.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lennart

 

 

On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 12:03 +0000, Yair Darshan wrote:

Hi all,

 

I found new problem that we need to discuss how to handle it.

 

In 3-pair mode during power on state, when a PD don’t want to be powered, it generates e.g. MPS=1.9mA which means PSE must disconnect, but due to the PD that doesn’t meet the backfeed on the unpowered pair, the unpowered pair consumes additional 1.3mA and this is added to the MPS. Under these conditions, the PD will not be disconnected.

Moreover, in general, a constant error of additional MPS current is added by the PSE…..instead of PD only should control the MPS current.

 

Let’s start to discuss this.

 

Yair

 

Darshan Yair

Chief R&D Engineer

Analog Mixed Signal Group

Microsemi Corporation

 

1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220
Neve Ne'eman Industrial Zone
Hod Hasharon 45421, Israel
Tel:  +972-9-775-5100, EXT 210.

Cell: +972-54-4893019
Fax: +972-9-775-5111

 

E-mail: <mailto:ydarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.  

 

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1