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

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Figure 33-14 Revised

Lennart, Yair -

Are we OK treating a DS PD with matched class signatures as if it is a single-load PD? If so, we make several things easier in the spec, and my inrush fix gets easier - only unmatched-class DS PDs need individual inrush specs, all others need to meet Iinrush total on all pairs (whatever that number is).

The text I'm working on would allow one pairset (4-pair power only) to violate the Iinrush-2p minimum by ~19% to account for E2EUNB as long as the sum of the two pairsets meets Iinrush.


On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Lennart,
Thanks. Looks good.
Additional few comments:
1. Page numbering is missing for reference.
2. In 33.2.6 you addressed in Pclass equation DS equal load. I could find addressing DS PD different loads.
3. In the 3rd and 4th curves: The ILIM_min (the total ILIMI_min) on the right side Y axis is missing. This allows disconnecting power also if total current is out of range which take advantage of the fact that unbalance effects are canceled so it will be possible to disconnect power at ILIM_min which has lower current value than 2xILIM-2Pmin.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yseboodt, Lennart [mailto:lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:12 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_4PPOE] Figure 33-14 Revised


Hi all,

Attached is a baseline proposal that continues the work done in September on Figure 33-14.
This baseline addresses updated Figures and all the surrounding text that is affected.

Review & comments are appreciated.

Kind regards,