| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thanks, Chad – Yes, I agree – the discussion was that this would result in inspector’s feeling they have an obligation to field-test PSEs for maximum unbalance current, and they have no way to do that. This had the potential
of making inspectors responsible for certifying the unbalance of the PoE system requiring them to turn on a fully-loaded system (all servers, lights, etc) and check currents – simply not practical. The alternative, that I recall the TG accepted, was that
the nominal current was a nameplate rating – and subject to the standards that manufacturers of PSEs adhered to. -george From: Chad Jones (cmjones) [mailto:cmjones@xxxxxxxxx]
All, I forgot to mention that CMP3 TG2 recommended a ‘resolve’ on PI1028. This is equivalent to a reject in IEEE parlance. We spent a lot of time talking about the merits and concerns with the addition. (this
is a NEC PoE TG PI that requests to add a 20% tolerance max for unbalance in 725.179 [listing requirements]). The problem was that inspectors see it as unenforceable code. As a result, I would recommend that 802.3 takes no position on this PI. You will note
this recommendation in the updated liaison draft letter when posted later today. We will discuss this at the next meeting.
Chad Jones Tech Lead, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 |