Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Type 4 PD

[Andrea Agnes <andrea.agnes181@xxxxxxxxx>]

ok I agree

but dual signature PD Class 5 would became both Type 3 and Type 4.

I suggest accordingly modification of Type 3 definition:

1.4.418aa Type 3 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 6, or a dual-signature PD that requests Class 1 to Class 4 on both Modes during Physical Layer classification, implements

Multiple-Event classification, and accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause 145).

2017-10-20 11:54 GMT+02:00 Lennart Yseboodt <lennartyseboodt@xxxxxxxxx>:

Hi Andrea,

That would make Class 5 and 6 single-signature PDs to be both Type 3
and Type 4.

Suggest:
1.4.418ac Type 4 PD: A single-signature PD that requests Class 7 or
Class 8, or a dual-signature PD that request Class 5 on at least one
Mode during Physical Layer classification, implements Multiple-Event
classification, is capable of Data Link Layer classification, and
accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause
145).

Not pretty,... but accurate.

Lennart

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 11:50 +0200, Andrea Agnes wrote:
> The definition of type 4 is:
>
> 1.4.418ac Type 4 PD: A PD that requests Class 7 or Class 8 during
> Physical Layer classification, implements Multiple-Event
> classification, is capable of Data Link Layer classification, and
> accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause
> 145).
>
> That definition doesn't include Dual signature PDs because the
> Physical Layer classification is limited to Class 5. 
>
> REMEDY : Changing the definition to:
> 1.4.418ac Type 4 PD: A PD that requests Class 5 or higher during
> Physical Layer classification, implementsMultiple-Event
> classification, is capable of Data Link Layer classification, and
> accepts power on both Modes simultaneously. (See IEEE 802.3, Clause
> 145).
>
> Proposed remedy is an extention of Type 4 PD, limited to Class 5 and
> Class 6 single signature only if PD is capable of Data Link Layer
> classification.
>
> Comments?
>
> I check if there are limits related to the Type and not to the Class
> value.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> Andrea