Hello Lennart,
A PD which has an open on one mode could conceivably be recognized as a dual-signature PD under the current definition and begin to enter the dual-signature state machine. While detection would show as open/invalid
and so this mode should never be powered, it could still pass connection check as a valid dual-signature PD when clearly four-pair power should never be applied.
That pairset would keep being returned to IDLE_[mode] of the SISM and the other mode would never allow pd_4pair_cand <= TRUE, so I do not see any errors with how the state machine would function as-is. However,
in this case exiting the top level PSE state diagram from CXN_CHK_EVAL back to IDLE and making a PSE decision to then change to a 2-pair mode to continue to START_DETECT seems to be more in line with the intent of how four-pair power and the connection check
are aligned?
Thank you,
Janine
From: Lennart Yseboodt <lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 4:50 AM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Comment for IEEE P802.3bt/D3.4 ballot
The definition of "invalid" is ambiguous in regard to the open circuit condition.
Is this an open circuit on both pairsets or either pairset?
"Invalid" was spawned from "open_circ" in the remedy to comment 108 against D1.7.
In the process, the qualifier "on both pairsets" was removed from the definition of open circuit.
Change: "Neither a single-signature nor a dual-signature configuration has been found.
This includes an open circuit condition."
To: "Neither a single-signature nor a dual-signature configuration has been found.
This includes an open circuit condition on either pairset."
Can you elaborate what problem this comment solves ?
Depending on if we mean "either pairset" or "both pairsets" this does change behavior in the state diagram when only one pairset is an open circuit.
On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 19:08 +0000, Janine Tinsley (jatallma) wrote:
Hello,
I have submitted a late comment for the ballot and expect that a motion will be made to include the comment resolution. Please find attached the comment, which suggests a clarification to the open circuit condition which may result in a
PSE’s “do_cxn_chk” returning an invalid condition.
With regards,
Janine Tinsley
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1