| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
During the final voting phase (Balloting Sponsors) of the IEEE 802.3ah EFM project, I sent two comments related to power supply and managment that were favorably received. The response was: "The suggestion may make a great new project, however, extending af is out of the scope of EFM's objectives."
As the objective of 8023-POEP is to extend 802.3af, I believe that it would be interesting now to consider my proposals, that are in the first page of the document:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/d3_1/D3_1_proposed_responses.pdf
With more than 1,200 million telephone lines over the world, and 802.3ah, there is a broad market potential for a solution like this, as I describe in a paper you will see in
http://www.lmdata.es/uets-eng.pdf
Thanks,
Jose Morales Barroso
jmb@xxxxxxxx
Michael McCormack wrote:
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