| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Colleagues: anyone have thoughts on this comment? I’m not sure which way to go with this
comment. ----------- CommentID: 178 CommenterName: Thaler, Pat CommenterEmail:
pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx CommenterPhone:
916-788-5663 CommenterFax: CommenterCo: Agilent
Technologies Clause: 33 Subclause: 33.2.3.2 Page: 41 Line: 46 CommentType: E Comment: It would be more reader friendly to have the value match the class
number that is supported. It also isn't clear why Classes 3 and 4 are lumped
together. Also, it isn't clear why the last value isn't simply Class 3 since
the text says it is the highest power supported. Class 4 is currently undefined
but the table says it is limited to the same max power as Class 3. Class 0
means that the power will be less than or equal to Class 3. Therefore the
highest power would be Class 3. Same comment applies to do_classification on page 42 line 44 CommentEnd: SuggestedRemedy: Values: 1 Class 1 2 Class 2 3 Class 3 RemedyEnd: Response: ResponseEnd: CommentStatus: X ResponseStatus: O Topic: CreateDate: 1/2/2003 LastModDate: 1/2/2003 DispatchDate: WrittenDate: Accept_RejectDate: Closed_UnsatisfDate: VoterStatus: Chad Jones cmjones@xxxxxxxxx Hardware
Engineer Phone:
330-664-7818 WNBU
Engineering Fax:
330-664-7990 Cisco Systems 320 Springside
Drive Suite 350 Akron, OH
44333-4500 www.cisco.com
|