Re: [8023-POEP] Call for Presentations
Mike-
With regard to compatibility with 802.3, compatibility with 802.3af should
be a MAJOR concern, IMHO.
Merry Christmas!
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael McCormack
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:50 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [8023-POEP] Call for Presentations
The first meeting of the POE Plus study group will be held during the
Vancouver 802.3 Interim meeting on January 26th and 27th (see
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/interims/vancouver_04.html ) If you
wish to present at the interim meeting, please submit your request per the
guidelines that may be found at the Procedure for Presenters web page:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/poep_study/presentproc.html
As this is a first meeting, there will not be many restrictions on the types
of presentations, however, I strongly recommended that you focus at least
part of your presentation on at least one of the "5 criteria" (section 7.2
of the 802.3 rules which can be reviewed at
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/rules/P802_3_rules.pdf) I specifically
request that anyone who can address one of the following please prepare and
present material:
Broad Market Potential
-Broad set(s) of applications.
-Multiple vendors, multiple users.
-Balance cost, LAN vs. attached stations.
I feel that we can use the application material from the CFI, and based on
the number of attendees we can judge item 2. The third item has already
drawn fire from the 802.3 constituency and needs to be addressed. If
someone had information regarding power management, power allocations or
other things that could help mitigate the system load I feel it would be
very appropriate. Any other thoughts on what could help balance costs?
Compatibility with IEEE Standard 802.3
-Conformance with CSMA/ CD MAC, PLS.
-Conformance with 802.2.
-Conformance with 802 Functional Requirments.
I honestly believe that this is pretty safe territory, as 802.3af has
charted the way to pass through these.
Distinct Identity
-Substantially different from other 802.3 specifications/ solutions.
-Unique solution for problem (not two alternatives/ problem).
-Easy for document reader to select relevant spec.
If we structure the Task Force as a revision to clause 33, we should not be
in much trouble here. However, the decision on what the project scope
should be will be made in the upcoming meetings. If anyone is an advocate
for making a new clause and not amending clause 33 then they should prepare
themselves to discuss these items.
Technical Feasibility
-Demonstrated feasibility; reports - - working models.
-Proven technology, reasonable testing.
-Confidence in reliability.
Anyone who has information regarding the capacity of the cable systems
should present on the technical feasibility for any increase in power. This
could be empirical or experimental in nature and I would hope to see some of
both. If you want a feature other than increased power I would expect a
presentation on what feature you want and how you would see it accomplished.
Economic Feasibility
-Cost factors known, reliable data.
-Reasonable cost for performance expected.
-Total Installation costs considered.
Hopefully one on the power supply vendors could comment on the costs
associated with going up from the current 15.4/12.95 Watts to some multiple
(40 or 30 Watts seem to be popular.) Anything else that would add cost
should also be discussed like perhaps increased rating of connectors, wires,
or components, etc.
There also needs to be a fair amount of work done to develop the objectives
of the future Task Force.
In order to get material release to the web and prepare an agenda, all
requests to present or be added to the agenda must be made by January 7,
2004.
Let me remind everyone that the purpose of a Study Group is to develop the
materials needed to justify creation of a Task Force - we are not going to
be developing the standard at this point. If we remain focused and can move
along we will get a Task Force and it is then that work on the standard
begins. While it is healthy to discuss some of the work or issues or needs
of any future standard at the Study Group meeting that is not the principal
nor even the secondary work before the group.
Thank you,
Mike McCormack