Re: Specifying Discovery
Good point on the testing. Let's define the PD identity network and the
limits on the PSE signaling during discovery, then define any testing
needed to verify it and not get bogged down in testing yet.
My $.02.
\Paul
At 04:38 PM 11/17/2000 -0500, RDLove wrote:
>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
>>
>
>