|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Geoff, Christian, Valerie, all,
It seems that the best way to differentiate between the energy applications that are carried over a particular link segment (or section) would be to say it: “signal” or “power”. Thus “power link section” or “signal link segment” might be written when they are used together and a clear distinction is needed. It is not clear whether a new definition is really needed in clause 1.4; “link section” seems clearly defined.
The term “frequency” seems very inappropriate for this use.
Surely, trying to interchange “link” with “channel” definitions in 802.3, at this stage, will cause massive unnecessary confusion far beyond the scope of 802.3. Imagine the confusion that continues to result from redefining “attenuation” and “insertion loss”, squared!
Thanks! Best regards, Dave
Why do you feel that a new term is needed that is precisely equivalent to the definition of the well established term "link section"?