Re: [802.3af] comment #178
Hi
I am in favor of dropping the signature detection too for what Rick Brooks
proposed.
even better the cisco way would be the best.
since we are still messing with classification i thought such a request at
this stage
would not be way off....
roger
At 03:04 PM 1/22/2003, Mike_S_McCormack@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>I would not be adverse to folding Class 0 into Class 3 since we have
>determined that PDs must provide a stable classification signature, its
>just that a stable detection signature over the classification voltage is
>also a valid classification signature now. (That is if I remember what we
>had done in Vancouver2.)
>
>As far as dropping Class 4, we need that if we want to leave room for
>future engineers to expand the power stuff.
>
>We reserve the range in the PD as class 4, which I imagine we can drop.
>End the classification region for PDs at the end of Class 3, and thereby
>reserve Class 4 be default. But a PSE built to day needs to know what to
>do when it runs into a device in what we intend for future stuff, and our
>only rule for future Class 4 devices is that Class 4 device better not
>start out more than class 3 requirements because that is what a legacy
>(legacy once the next group updates the spec.) PSE will do to get started.
>
>My two cents.
>
>Mike
>
>PS - is there anyway we can get a rule in .3 that we will not recycle
>meeting cities until all groups that met in that city have finished? It
>makes it more difficult to specify when a decision was made. While we're
>doing that, we should insert a rule about no plenary meetings at airport
>hotels.
>
>
>
>
>"Chad Jones" <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx>@majordomo.ieee.org on 01/22/2003 05:48:22
>PM
>
>Please respond to <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Sent by: owner-stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>To: "AF Reflector \
>cc:
>Subject: [802.3af] comment #178
>
>
>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
>
>(See attached file: C.htm)
>
>
>