| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, I just realized I forgot to notify the reflector that I updated the comment files as a result of our meeting last Thursday. The files on the comment site reflect the state of the comments after our two comment resolution meetings.
There are still 18 comments to process, and we will finish those at the meeting next week during the 802 plenary series. Here is a summary of the 18 comments that remain to be closed: 2 “Voltage classes” comment which we didn’t look at – shouldn’t be too hard but involve a discussion about what the nominal voltage is for the low voltage system. 4 “Test modes” comments Comments 70 and 87 should be straightforward – they offer a simple solution and are recommended ACCEPT. Comment 86 needs replacement figure for the test fixtures 168-12 and 168-13, showing and incorporating the TCI. Shouldn’t be hard but
need a proposal once we have resolved the 2-wire/4-wire thing. Proposals are welcomed. Comment 79 is looking at whether to change an editor’s note – should be easy when we resolve the minimum impedance presented by the PMA
(hard to do)… 5 “TCI” comments – Comment 26 is descriptive text there is a proposed a solution for Comments 32, 36, 38 are related to the 2-wire vs. 4-wire nature of the TCI and what we need to specify (this is
THE Big-Ticket Item). These (in conjunction with the TBDs in TCI return loss and missing specs) are perhaps the biggest barrier to technical completeness. Once we get this done, a lot of things fall into place. We need to resolve how we have a complete,
plug-and-play set of specs with a 2-wire connection to the DTE at the TCI. This means controlling the reflections onto the larger mixing segment in a way that keeps the mixing segment parameters independent (or as independent as possible) of the implementation
of TCIs, the location of DTEs, and the loading DTEs put on the network. At the moment ,we have a lot of partial thoughts that go in different directions. Proposals and discussions needed. Comment 97 is also a big-ticket item. This refers to the high impedance that the PMA presents when not transmitting, and we don’t have a proposal
on how to specify this without TC3, because the PMA impedance is at the TC3 reference point. It is probably the last place we need TC3 in the spec. 2 “Power – TCI” comments – 1 addressing whether (and what) we specify as the maximum DC resistance on the through-path of the TCI. Need a proposal. 1 needing proposed language (deferred) where we need to find better language to say what I_PI(max) is without referencing TC3. 5 “Power levels” comments we deferred, where we need to replace the Pmpd(max) spec with something that reflects the unit load concept (requires a contribution). As previously announced,
I will take presentation requests through 8 March 11:59PM AOE and accept the PDF submission until 10 March 11:59PM. For those attending in person, see you in a few days. Otherwise, I will “see” you all in the
Webex meeting starting next Wednesday. Regards, Chad Jones Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 |