| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Scott – thank you. I prefer Option 3 – it’s well documented and clear.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
310-920-3860
From: Scott Muma <00003414ca8b162c-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 4:03 PM
To: STDS-802-3-ISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_ISAAC] Possible resolution for comments #107 and #237 for d0.c
At the comment resolution meeting Tuesday it wasn’t clear what resolution would satisfy comments #107 and #237.
Some options to consider (not intended to exclude others) and can be discussed at the next comment resolution meeting:
Option 1: Implement the suggested remedy for #237 and withdraw/reject #107.
Option 2: Delete definition of tdd_watchdog_status on P216L17 and remove tdd_watchdog_status from Figure 202-28. This solution takes the approach that tdd_watchdog_status is a subset of conditions that would be detected earlier by (loc_rcvr_status = NOT_OK + hi_rfer)
Option 3:
Best regards,
Scott
---
Scott Muma
Senior Technical Staff Architect
Microchip Technology, Inc.
Email: scott.muma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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