|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks for checking. I have implemented the merge as suggested by taking Clause 27 as the model. I’ve also duplicated the explanation on how to read the notation from 184.108.40.206.6.
Currently missing is a bit of introductory text stating that a dual signature consists of two instances of this state diagram (and variable set), one for M=Mode A and another for M=Mode B.
Attached a preview.
Yesterday, I took the action item to look into how to implement a comment which requested we use the same diagram for the two identical state diagrams for alt a and alt b. I spoke with David Law, who suggested two different models for situations where you had one diagram but two sets of variables. These were Clause 28 autoneg (which uses variablename_x where x is something like 1GigT, 10GigT, etc., indicating the PMA type selected.), or Clause 27, which describes multiport repeaters, which uses variablename(X) where X is either the port number, or, can be things like “ALL”, “ALLXN” (all except port N), as described in 220.127.116.11. After looking at both of them, I recommend the Clause 27 approach, and that Lennart look to 27.3.2, its subsections, and figures 27-3 and 27-4 (state diagrams for Port X) as models for the changes to the state diagram so that one figure can be used for both alternatives.
It seems to me that this nomenclature may help us clean up some of the complexity in our upper level diagram as well, eliminating some of the ‘both’ ‘pri’ and ‘sec’ checks, that are logically ANDed and ORed with the variables being checked. I’m not sure yet, but I urge those interested to look at it, in an effort to simplify our diagrams, and consider comments on the next round.
George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal Consultant
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications