Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments
In reading Dan's suggestion, I find a similar problem with Hugh's proposed text related to cabling. I also do not recall but haven't searched, and it may be implicit rather than explicit, anything in the standard that requires system installers to make sure channel characteristics are met in the environment installed. This gets a bit away from the plug and play assumptions that folk have about Ethernet.
It might be better to express this in a tactful way. Specifically, that "IEEE 802.3 does not specify implementations, and Ethernet products are typically designed for enterprise environments. While the standard may provide margin for use of those products in more harsh environments than the typical enterprise, the developers of the standard have not considered all possible environments. Industrial applications cannot be approached with the plug-and-play attitude typical of most Ethernet installations, but instead must be considered to be engineered networks, where the system installer assures that channel characteristics are met in the unusually harsh noise environment found in industrial applications." Or something similar.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Heath
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:22 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power over Ethernet performance in industrial environments
All,
I concur with Dan's addendum to Hugh's comment.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dove, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:36 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power
over Ethernet performance in industrial environments
All,
I agree with Hugh's general theme, but I still see a need to add language
into the UTP clauses that directs an implementer to avoid a valid PD
signature at the MDI if they are not building a PD. While Hugh is correct
that an Ethernet designer should be aware of the exposure created by failing
to pay attention to clause 33, such changes would eliminate the exposure
completely.
Its my opinion this is a maintenance issue though, and not an 802.3at issue.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:45 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power
over Ethernet performance in industrial environments
Hugh - I agree with your well-written response.
-george
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hugh Barrass
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:51 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Liaison letter from IEC TC65/SC65C/JWG10 - Power
over Ethernet performance in industrial environments
David,
I can see that the liaison from IEC has caused some interesting discussion
amongst PoE experts (and myself), however I think that we are
being asked to comment on what may well be design flaws in specific products
and I do not think that is a healthy discussion within 802.3.
I suggest that we should send a reply along the following lines:
==========================================
The problems described in your liaison spurred some vigorous discussion
amongst our task force members regarding possible causes for the damage that
you describe. However the members are not aware of any similar reports that
might indicate a systemic problem with 802.3 compliant equipment. It is the
opinion of the members of IEEE P802.3at Task Force that the standard allows
product manufacturers to build reliable and interoperable equipment that
will meet the requirements for supplying power over Ethernet in many
environments. However, the standard does not
define how a manufacturer must build the product to ensure reliability or
how an installer should ensure that the media is suitable for correct
operation within the standard. We suggest that you should work with the
equipment manufacturers involved to determine whether the failure is the
result of a systemic problem with the standard and whether a specific
amendment may be required.
With respect to the bit error rate performance of 802.3 links when power
is being supplied over the same link, the members of IEEE P802.3at Task
Force believe that a compliant system supplying power over an 802.3 link
will not perturb the channel sufficiently to degrade the performance of the
underlying link. However, it is the responsibility of the product
manufacturer to ensure that noise introduced by the load does not couple
to the link and violate the power over Ethernet specifications or the
channel specifications required for the link. Similarly it is the
responsibility of the system installer that the channel characteristics are
met in the presence of environmental noise.
===========================================
Hugh.
David Law wrote:
>All,
>
>The IEEE 802.3 Working Group has received a liaison letter from IEC
>TC65/SC65C/JWG10, Industrial process measurement, control and
>automation/Industrial networks with respect to Power over Ethernet
>performance in industrial environments.
>
>I just wanted to inform you that I intend to delegate the generation of
a
>draft response to the IEEE P802.3at DTE Power Enhancements Task Force
>during the plenary week in July. The draft response will be consider
and
>then voted upon at the closing IEEE 802.3 Working Group plenary as part
of
>the IEEE P802.3at closing report. You therefore may wish to review the
>letter prior to the meeting, the letter can be accessed at the URL [
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/minutes/jul09/0709_IEC_SC65C_JWG10_to_802_3.pd
f
>].
>
>Best regards,
> David Law
> IEEE 802.3 Working Group Chair
>
>
>