|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I fully agree that interoperability is #1.
I believe that this Ad-hoc should report the worst case cable imbalance at the temperature that creates the worst case condition, and is within the operating range for the ‘channel’. In this case our analysis is including components beyond the PI because we seem collectively to feel it is prudent to do so.
I believe that there is president for worst case analysis including temperature in previous PoE Task Forces. For instance, correct me if I am wrong here but the worst case channel resistance at 100m is specified not at 25C, but rather at a hot ‘edge’ (was it 50C ambient plus cable heating?) In order to guarantee operability between PSEs and PDs, we needed to choose the worst case resistance of the channel. If we want to interoperate, the same principle seems to apply here in my opinion.
I believe that some of the push back on this issue is perhaps because the worst case imbalance is dominated by the PD diode bridges. These components are indeed not in the PI but we are considering them in this Ad-hoc none the less because they are material to cable imbalance.
Interoperability is a key goal for this and any dot3 standard. I am open to other approaches in achieving this goal as long as it creates confidence in the Task Force and dot3 that component providers and OEMs will understand what they need to do and systems will interoperate.
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
Please review if I missed your name in the list of attendees on last Thursday a-hoc meeting.
§ David Tremblay / HP
Chief R&D Engineer
Analog Mixed Signal Group
1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220