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

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] combining the identical state diagrams to one

Hi Lennart,

I believe that you have the introductory text in darshan_09_0915.pdf. See page 11 lines 3-7.

You may need to make the changes if regarding the final suffix that you want to use.



From: Yseboodt, Lennart [mailto:lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:52 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] combining the identical state diagrams to one



Hi George,


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

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.




From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: vrijdag 16 september 2016 15:33
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Yseboodt, Lennart
Subject: combining the identical state diagrams to one


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  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