|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
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
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?
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: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bt/public/nov15/darshan_06_1115.pdf
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: