But your
original text talks about a ground.
Snipped from your original email:
“The comment:
I can find no place where there is a specification as
to which side of PSI
is tied to ground (i.e. negative ground vs. the
positive ground usually
found in mid-fifties British sports cars with Lucas
electrics.) I request
that a specification be added that dictates which
side of the supply is
grounded.”
If you are
just talking about a common point, then I think this becomes a less contentious
comment. I would also suggest that
we reword the comment to talk about a common point and not a ground.
Chad Jones
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003
12:45 PM
To: Mike_S_McCormack@xxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3af] Late
comment
Mike-
You are correct.
I believe that the committee accepted the late comment as:
"Worthy of
consideration and inclusion into the comment database for 4.0"
That was all that I was looking for at the time.
I also believe that the status of this particular comment is that it has not
yet been actually considered by the Comment Resolution Group.
The purpose of my message was so that the comment had a paper trail and would
actually get put into the comment database (with fair warning) and be up for
formal resolution at the Santa Clara meeting.
Thanks for putting it where it belongs.
more below..
At 09:11 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, you wrote:
My 2 cents -
In reply to the assertion that the committee agree there was a problem,
that is not how I remember it. I remember that the committee agreed it
was
worth further consideration and would agree to adding a late comment to
facilitate the inquiry. Was there a comment added that was accepted or
accepted in principle that I don't remember?
If we choose to go down the path to specifying ground, there is impact to
clauses 14, 25, and 40 at a minimum, I would suggest that we may as well
open up clauses 9 and 27 as well and straighten out those. I would ask
that proposed change text be prepared and circulated prior to the meeting
at Cisco.
Are we talking specifying a common or ground?
I hope all that I am talking about is specifying which end of the primary power
is the common.
Mike
Geoff