| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Rick, when I proposed to maintain a list of pros
and cons for the two discovery methods, I stated that the area that would be
most controversial would be asssigning a value to the importance of each of the
factors. That determination I left for each of us to decide, so that we
would not be in an endless battle on those fine points. I think that your
note provides us with good input, which we need to consider. In
an attempt to separate the listing of benefits from weighting the benefits, I
would like to propose a melding of your input and Don's as follows:
Don has recommended:
(I-2) Minimizes cross-talk
interference potential to Gigabit Ethernet and
unidentified future services, which you would like to see
rewritten as:
(I-2) Does not interfere
with Gigabit Ethernet
I would propose resolving this disagreement as
follows:
Include the following distinctions:
(I-2a) Does not interfere
with Gigabit Ethernet
(I-2b) Further minimizes
cross-talk interference potential to Gigabit Ethernet
(I-2c) Minimizes cross-talk
interference potential to unidentified future
services
When listed in this way, each of us can make the
independent assessment on how much weight to give the benefits of not
interfering with Gigabit Ethernet, with further minimizing cross-talk
interference potential to Gigabit Ethernet, and with minimizing cross-talk
interferfence potential to unidentified future services. I-2b and I-2c may
be categories that Don gives a stronger weighting to than you
do.
With this proliferation of catgegories, I would
advise the members of the task force to give each of the super categories a
percentage weighting (i.e. assign % values to categories I, R, D, C, and
S so that the toal equals 100%) As a next step, assign relative
weightings within each category. Using COSTS as an example, assume you
have assigned to COSTS a 25% overall weighting: Take the 8 sub-bullets
under COSTS and assign them them relative percentage values that total 100%, and
then multiply each of those values by the 25% CATEGORY value to detemine the
final overall weighting of the sub-categories. This still leaves you the
task of determining how well each Discovery method meets each of these
criteria. When carrying out the analysis in this manner, disecting a single benefit into many sub-benefits does
not end up giving it more weighting in the final quantified evaluation of the
trade-offs.
Rick, you questioned proposed benefit (I-3).
Certainly, "(I-3) minimizes EMI" is a benefit
that many of us would give at least some weighting to. The fact that one
of the benefits of a dc scheme is to minimize EMI should not prejudice us to
remove or modify this potential benefit. I strongly
recommend we do not remove or change this category.
For R-1 and R-2 you make the comment We need to define "noisy" environment. I agree with your comment and hope that we have e-mail input
proposing how to define those environments. Ultimately, we each must give
a weighting to this benefit and relative scores to each of the discovery
methods. Tests presented will be a substantial help for all of us in
making both assessments. I welcome adding "proposed tests" to the notes on
this benefit which may provide useful criteria for making the
assessments.
For (R-3) you
state: We need further definition
on this one. I agree. Good definitions are appropriately
placed in the notes and will aid in determining the assigned
weights.
Per your suggestion we
can add:
"R-5) Avoids
failure to detect a valid powerable device".
"(R-6) Automatic recovery from a cable discharge or ESD event". Rick, for (D-1) Low risk of equipment damage IF power is ever inappropriately provided you say How
is this an issue of the discovery method, that is not covered above under
robustness? I looked closely at the 4 Robustness items Don proposed, and your 2
additional ones, and fail to see where (D-1) is covered at all by any of
them. Further, D-1, does not appear to be a Robustness Issue. If
anything it is in a different super category of SAFETY. If we have other
safety issues that surface, we could certainly place D-1 there. In the
meantime, I would strongly favor just leaving it where it is. Again, each
of us must decide what the appropriate relative weighting is for this
benefit.
For (C-1) you state: Doesn't this assume a fact that is not yet in evidence?
Are you saying that discovery and load current measurement must use the same method? I urge all with strong opinions in these areas to
present their arguements for and against via e-mail. These argurements
will assist us in determining the weightings to give both to the category,
and to how well each Discovery method satisfies this criteria.
----- Original Message -----
|