Yair, the process has not change. You know it takes 75% to add or remove something.
I don’t see problems with keeping the text. I don’t see a problem with deleting it. It exists in the draft and if you want it removed, you need to convince 75% to agree with
you. This has to be done before the meeting as there will not be time for you to change minds on the phone.
Chad Jones
Tech Lead, Cisco Systems
Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force
Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
From: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 7:27 AM
To: Chad Jones <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 4PPOE Reflector <STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] Summary of the missing requirements for Transients for <=30uS
Hi Chad,
Please see below.
Yair
From: Chad Jones (cmjones) [mailto:cmjones@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:13 AM
To: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Summary of the missing requirements for Transients for <=30uS
EXTERNAL EMAIL
I’m fine deleting this purely informative text. But it was voted in there for a reason and it will take 75% to get it out.
Yair:
- I am fine with deleting too. There reason we add it was to indicate that is such short durations, Vpse can go below Vtran-2P also
because of inductance and not because PSE deliberately lower its output voltage. I believe that this informative text is useful as long as you give it the correct weight i.e. you say that there is no requirements behind it which currently it is not clear that
this is the case. You see, the meaning of it must be as in clause 33. By adding this text we opened the door to question such: OK…what is the requirement
here?
- Why we need 75% if a comment on this to delete will be accepted. I guess you mean in case that there is no concensus to accept to
delete?
I will be doing roll call votes on the call next week, and if necessary, 802.3 voters only votes if I perceive block voting. You will have to work the TF to get the 75% majority
on your side. If this thread is any indication, you have a lot of work to do.
Yair: What are the problems you see with keeping this text and adding that “requirements for transients below 30usec are not define” which give you the same end result
as deleting the text as in clause 33?
Yair
Chad Jones
Tech Lead, Cisco Systems
Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force
Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
OK, so what if we delete this text
“Transients less than 30
μs in duration may cause the voltage at the PI to fall below VTran-2P.” and make clause 145 identical to clause 33? In this regard?
Yair
EXTERNAL EMAIL
You are asking to state something is not specified. End of sentence. Not a different case and no place for this in our standard.
-Chad
Please excuse tiping errors
😃
Hi Chad,
This is totally different case.
In clause 33 we add a text
“Transients less than 30
μs in duration may cause the voltage at the PI to fall below VTran-2P.” that was not appeared in clause 33.
The addition of it creates a valid question i.e. what to do with this piece of information?
I am asking to explicitly say what to do with it. To say “No requirements are specified for transients <30usec” is also clear statement which makes it similar to clause 33.
We can’t be worse than clause 33 in terms of clarity.
That is why I disagree with your statement “If we listed everything that wasn’t specified, we’d never finish” since I am not asking to specify new requirement. I am asking
to clarify what was clear in clause 33 and now in clause 145 it is not.
Yair
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Yair, we’ve be at this specification stuff for 15 years (you and I). Many, many times we have talked about how we don’t address what’s not addressed (and yes, that circular
text was intentional). If we listed everything that wasn’t specified, we’d never finish. I cannot support the addition of this statement.
Chad Jones
Tech Lead, Cisco Systems
Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force
Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
Hi all,
After seeing all the responses, I propose the following remedy to my comment below.
The concept is to make it similar to what we have in clause 33 which is no PSE requirements for transients below 30usec
Make the following changes:
"Transients less than 30
μs in duration may cause the voltage at the
PI to fall below VTran-2P. Requirements for Transients less than 30
μs
in duration are not specified. See 145.3.8.6 for PD transient requirements."
Other option is to delete “"Transients less than 30
μs in duration may cause the voltage at the
PI to fall below VTran-2P.” however I see the value with keeping this text but to complete explicitly the needed requirements which is in this case “no requirements are specified”.
Yair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In clause 145 in the PD side we have clear requirements for what to do below 30usec and what to do between 30-250usec.
In the PSE side, it is only clear what to do between 30usec to 250usec.
Below 30usec the spec just giving us the info that the voltage can be lower than Vtran-2P but doesn’t
say what to do in this case.
If for example we didn’t have this text "Transients less than 30
μs in duration may cause the voltage at the
PI to fall below VTran-2P” as we don’t have in clause 33, that it will not be raising the question OK so what netx? What is the requirement from PSE in that case. Should we keep the power? Should we remove power? We don’t
care? Or It is system decision? (i.e. may or may not remove power or “no requirements are specified” ? This is the problem that I am trying to resolve.
Yair
<image001.png>
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
|