|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Making a new paragraph does absolutely nothing to the requirements.
If anything, those 3 sentences all deal with the same topic: transients of various lengths, and should be one paragraph.
We're past the point we should be making such changes.
I've the feeling there is a subsurface misunderstanding happening, there is no other explanation for so many emails over this topic.
Here's what 126.96.36.199 REQUIRES:
(1) Transient of longer than 250uS ==> voltage SHALL meet VPort_PSE-2P for the entire duration of the transient
(2) Transient of 30-250uS ==> voltage SHALL not go below VTran-2P at any time
(3) Transient of 30us or less ==> voltage MAY fall below VTran-2P
I list (3) even though it is not a requirement.
All this statement does is reinforce that we specifically choose not to make any requirement on the PSE for this particular case.
There is nothing broken here, hence the resistance to make changes.
I would suggest we don't make any changes here.
On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 18:23 +0000, Yair Darshan wrote:
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