RE: Specifying Discovery

["Schwartz, Peter" <Peter.Schwartz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Geoff:

I would hope that my comments were taken, not as representing any one
company, but as an informed viewpoint from one who has worked at various
semiconductor companies.

That said, I am properly reminded of the IEEE view on membership.  And, I
agree with you and with others who have said that an "exemplary
implementation" would be helpful in allowing systems and device designers to
properly implement the discovery specification.

Regards,

Peter Schwartz
peter.schwartz@xxxxxxxxxx

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Geoff Thompson [SMTP:gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
	Sent:	Saturday, November 18, 2000 14:10
	To:	Schwartz, Peter
	Cc:	Larry Miller; Paul Moore; stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
	Subject:	RE: Specifying Discovery

	Peter-

	You represent yourself, perhaps as a member of the IC Vendor
community. You 
	don't represent anyone else in 802.3 unless you have a liaison
position. 
	Membership is by individual.

	I am not disagreeing with the merit of your point of view, quite the

	contrary. There are significant legal and traditional reasons why we
need 
	to define interface parameters and characteristics rather than an 
	implementation. An example implementation that satisfies our
requirements 
	my be helpful though.

	Geoff

	At 09:13 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Schwartz, Peter wrote:

	>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
	>