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 [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:27 PM
> To: Booth, Bradley
> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [10GBASE-T] RE: EMI Discussion
> 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.
> At 05:22 PM 8/14/2003 -0700, Booth, Bradley wrote:
> >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?).
> >Sent from my BlackBerry.