| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi George, I agree with the proposed change. Tim From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> EXTERNAL EMAIL:
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
I’ll kick this off with a comment I received privately (thanks Piers) that I agree with. I didn’t want to churn the proposal too much, rather letting the group discuss and reach consensus. Piers points out that the proposed rewrite says “point-to-point link” twice in the first sentence, which is redundant:
The base text was: “This clause specifies an optional MAC Merge sublayer for use with
a pair of full-duplex MACs and a single PHY operating at 100 Mb/s or higher
on a point-to-point link.” He further suggests dropping out the first instance, so that the resolution reads more like the base text, and I would agree with that, so that it reads: “This clause specifies an optional MAC Merge sublayer for use with a pair of MACs and a single PHY operating
on a point-to-point link. The clause is applicable to full-duplex operation with 10BASE-T1L (Clause 146) and 10BASE-T1S (Clause 147) PHYs and all PHYs 100 Mb/s and above. It is also applicable to half-duplex point-to-point operation with the 10BASE-T1S
(Clause 147) PHY, but operation with the 10BASE-T1S PHY in multidrop mode is not specified."
Thoughts appreciated (even if it is ‘I agree’) -george To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPEP2P list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPEP2P&A=1 |