Re: [802.3af] comment #178

[Mike_S_McCormack@xxxxxxxx]

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)

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