| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I am sending this on behalf of Rainer Schmidt, his mail bounces and Matthias Fritsche is still on vacation.
Dieter
Dear Task Force Members,
since at least I saw the message from Peter it was clear that I have to contribute to this conversation.
First of all I want to thank everyone in the loop for the thoughts, the ideas and all the initiatives to push this standard forward and to find consensus also in critical questions.
I guess that it is what the standardization work makes so interesting.
To solve the comments especially regarding MDI specification yes or nor or perhaps… the agenda Peter suggested is helpful.
- Restore IEC 63171-1 as suggested in r02-14.
I think that is very near to the approach Lennart describes in his email. For my understanding it is important to understand that we speak about a very fragmented market for SPE applications - Lennart mentioned already.
With IEEE802.3cg we give one major advantage to all our customers (including future customers): universal TCP/IP communication over all levels of the network. That is the major success factor for all of the different applications.
But don’t forget where this applications come from and which installation practice is connected to them over many years. That means e.g. for process automation with the thick 18 or 16AWG cables they want to use termination blocks not just plugable cennectors..
And for the industrial space the same. They need well known connector dimensions like M8 and M12…
- Revert the MDI connector text back to D3.0, adding back in IEC 63171-1 and IEC 63171-6 as “MAY” without any mapping to E1/E2/E3.
From my point of view that’s the best option combining the request from Lennart to give guidance for connectivity (even it’s not just one) as well as delivers maximal compatibility to cabling standards driven forward in TIA and in ISO/IEC as well - Val mentioned so often.
I personally believe in this solution helping us to address the different SPE applications needing such guidelines. I think automotive or intelligent lighting have their own roadmap regarding connectors…
- Reject the comment and make no change.
That’s a possible option I don’t like it too much because we will let pass the opportunity to give guidance and to lead the upcoming SPE market(s) to high compatibility in connectivity.
I will try to attend the Milwaukee meeting. If I can’t for what reason ever I wish you all a successful meeting and good progress.
Rainer
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1