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

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Example subsection new clause



As I see it, in hindsight, 4-Pair PoE should have been a new “chapter”  (ie clause).


Mutual ID conceptually serves as the ‘auto-negotiation’ for PoE.


My one issue with this proposal would be rather than divide by Type-1/2 vs Type-3/4,  why not divide by 2-Pair vs 4-Pair PoE?


In the world of 2-Pair PoE there is no concept of a connection check, 4-Pair ID, pair-to-pair unbalance, 4-pair inrush considerations, etc., etc.   Most of the rules pertinent to a 2-Pair Type-3 PSE/PD exist today as 802.3at.  The only exceptions (off the top of my head) are:


1)      LCF Classification

2)      DC MPS

3)      Autoclass


Optioning the above 3 features into 802.3at seems like it would be a relatively straight forward task.   (Associating these features with Type-3/4 versus just as new options to Type-1/2 would need to be considered also….that way, Type-3/4 are once again aligned with 4-Pair PoE exclusively.)


Does anyone else see it this way?




Pete J





From: Yseboodt, Lennart [mailto:lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:17 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_4PPOE] Example subsection new clause


Hi all,


This week there will be a proposal to describe Type 3 and Type 4 in a new separate Clause in 802.3.



And one from Yair:


To aid us in deciding to go for this or not, I’ve made a “preview” of what the PD section would look like.

This is in our private section:


Kind regards,