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

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

Draft 4.0 actually referenced both in an objective it added to 44: "Meet or exceed FCC/CISPR Class A operation" 

This was removed in response to comments. It is a reasonable objective for a project in showing technical feasibility/marketability. It is meaningless as part of the published objective list in the standard since it doesn't distinguish one part of the standard from another. It would be like having an objective "meet minimum legal requirements to be sold in most of the market." If we did a project with an objective of meeting the more restrictive Class B, that might be worth putting that in the draft. I think it also had editorial problems - if memory serves me, FCC uses "Level" rather than "Class".

Draft 5.0 doesn't mention either so it is clean.


-----Original Message-----
From: DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1) []
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:53 AM
To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Booth, Bradley
Subject: 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.