Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [10GBASE-T] RE: EMI Discussion


I think Brad was referring to our project objectives, not the spec. While
we did not have a specific objective wrt CISPR, we should have.

I agree that we should include CISPR into the objectives for 10GBASE-T.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Thompson []
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:27 PM
> To: Booth, Bradley
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] RE: EMI Discussion
> Brad-
> If CX4 referenced FCC instead of CISPR then that is something 
> that should 
> get fixed during sponsor Ballot. The FCC reference is not proper for 
> something that is on track to be approved at ISO, as we 
> assume that all of 
> our amendments are.
> Geoff
> At 05:22 PM 8/14/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >Alan,
> >
> >Thanks for the information.  The many reason I referenced 
> the FCC Class A 
> >was that it was what CX4 used in their draft.  If CISPR is 
> the better 
> >document to reference then we should do that.  If we adopt 
> this as an 
> >objective, then it will require us to comply which I believe 
> is Dan's 
> >primary concern and intent (did I get that right Dan?).
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Brad
> >
> >-----------------
> >Sent from my BlackBerry.