Re: Specifying Discovery
Ideally any standard should specify black box interface specifications only.
However, it should also specify them in enough detail so that those skilled
in the art are clear as to what is required. One way to add clarity without
overspecifying is to first detail the specifications which SHALL be met, and
then to follow them with an "Exemplary Implementation" so that implementors
better understand what is met.
Testing is a different issue. Specifications mean almost nothing until you
know how to measure them. However, these should be the measurements taken
at the I/O, and not internal to the guts of the structure. Except for
relatively straightforward specifications, I/O measurement technique must be
specified to fully define what is meant by the specifications.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwartz, Peter <Peter.Schwartz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Larry Miller <ldmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Paul Moore
<pamoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: Specifying Discovery
>
> Representing the IC vendor community, I couldn't agree more. Each vendor
> bring specific expertise and specific process capabilities to the
Discovery
> task. Therefore innovation and competition are encouraged by defining
> criteria, and leaving methodology to the implementer.
>
> As Roger Karam says, my 2c.
>
> Peter Schwartz
> Applications Engineer
> Micrel Semiconductor
> Phone: 408.435.2460
> FAX: 408.456.0490
> peter.schwartz@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Miller [SMTP:ldmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 7:17
> To: Paul Moore; stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Specifying Discovery
>
> I agree.... The parameters of the loop belong in the Standard, the
> way you measure them is implementation (not in the Standard).
>
> Larry Miller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moore, Paul [SC5:321-M:EXCH]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 3:33 PM
> To: stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Specifying Discovery
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure others have already thought of this, but having a dialog
> might help us get to completion sooner, so here goes.
>
> Now that there is a discovery method on the table I began thinking
> about how we specify it. Seems to me we only need to specify the identity
> network on the PD end, some sort of simple limitations on the PSE
discovery
> signals, and then put an annex in the standard showing a proven
> implementation. The actual method used to do discovery in the PSE should
be
> left to the individual implementor. Things like radiated and conducted
> noise, noise susceptibility, ESD susceptibility, etc. need not be in the
> spec., but an annex might point out the relevant documents governing them.
> I'm sure I've missed a few things here, but seems to me the actual spec.
> part is pretty short. Comments??
>
> \Paul
>
>
> Paul B. Moore
> Senior Manager, Hardware Engineering
> Small Business Solutions - Santa Clara
> Nortel Networks
> 4401 Great America Parkway
> PO Box 58185, MS SC05-02
> Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
> Phone: 408-495-2466
> FAX: 408-495-5615
>