| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I also reviewed K.21. (the other recent docs I saw in the private area were contributions). Not much in there – looks like they took our request to align with 802.3’s 1.5kV common mode tolerance. It also
looks like they deleted the differential mode surge. These appear to be supported by the Brazillian contribution. There is one comment that needs a language cleanup: Page 2 – NOTE 5 – The basic test levels in Table 7 should be applied to the port that is perfectly matched with the
definition of internal port defined in the Annex A.2.1 of [b-ITU-T K.44] this is probably a language issue, but to say a “port that is perfectly matched” isn’t a technically meaningful statement. “perfect” matching doesn’t exist. I believe what is meant is “…applied to a port
which matches the definition of internal port in Annex A.2.1 of [b-ITU-T K.44] George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In case I don‘t make the PDCC meeting. I have reviewed the draft of K.147 in our private area. I believe most of our concerns have been addressed. However, I think there is some editorial cleanup to be
done. Several of the references in the bibliography (particularly about SPE) are no longer relevant to or referenced by the text of the document. These should be deleted as they may lead the reader to inaccurate information. The only technically relevant
statements I see in the document regarding SPE are the references that loop resistances and power classes may be found in IEEE Std 802.3 clause 104 (pointing to the appropriate sections), which I understand their position that having these resistances is useful
for surge protection (that seems reasonable, and pointing to our document is definitive). The reference can be found in 9.3, and references only 802.3. SPE and Profinet have been deleted from Appendix II and elsewhere, which removes the other content. On review, the statement at the end of 6.1 that we had requested be deleted (but they did not remove) might be modified: “Note that Single-pair Ethernet (SPE) deployment is currently minimal, and there is an absence of field data to support resistibility requirements. As a result, SPE content in this Recommendation is derived
by extrapolation of existing communications link data and published papers on the subject.” Might become: “Note that Single-pair Ethernet (SPE) deployment is currently minimal, and there is an absence of field data to support resistibility requirements. As a result, SPE content in this Recommendation is derived
by extrapolation of IEEE Std 802.3-2022.” (or the ITU-T version of 802.3-2022 as that is probably more appropriate). The “existing papers” I believe referred to references b-Maytum and b-SPE-R, in the bibliography. b-Maytum and b-SPE-R are no longer referenced in the document and should be deleted from the bibliography as
well. Those were some of the problematic references… George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 |