Please read the definition of "Link Section"
As 1st defined in Std 802.3af - 2003 (the first amendment to 802.3 adding PoE):
1.4.x Link Section: The portion of the link from the PSE to the PD.
And as currently defined in Std 802.3 - 2015 (I don't think it has been touched by any other project):
(PoDL would be the only likely one to do that and it did not.)
1.4.254 link section: The portion of the link from the PSE to the PD.
As you can see,
- it has been there as long as PoE has been in existence
- it has never changed
- it is precise
- it was created with a precise and specific relationship to the cabling term "Link Segment"
- it includes all of the cabling including the application specific end connectors
- it is exactly equivalent to a "link segment" when there is no mid-span involved.
Our TF chair has declared that it is not within our scope to fix cl. 33
so any action that I would like to take to purge the use of the term channel that has crept in to existing cl. 33 will have to be done by maintenance changes
but I will work to keep the problem from getting worse by the addition of 4-Pair.
The intent of this has already been addressed. Christian seems to have fallen into the trap that we are amending only 802.3-2015. Instead, we are amending 802.3-2015 as amended by the 9 other amendments that have gone before us. Yes, it’s been a busy year and hard to keep track. 802.3by already addressed this issue in large part, by changing the definition of channel in 1.4.134.
The definition of channel we SHOULD be using is: 1.4.134 channel: In 10BROAD36, a band of frequencies dedicated to a certain service transmitted on the broadband medium. Otherwise, a defined path along which data in the form of an electrical or optical signal passes. (For 10BROAD36, s See IEEE Std 802.3, Clause 11.)
other than the explicit reference to link section, which I think is unnecessary, because the definition is generic enough to refer to either link segment or link section, and the possibility that we might consider power not an electrical “signal”, (in which case, a simple amendment to make it signal or power should suffice), this comment seems to be OBE by 802.3by-2016.
Please, let’s not create extra work for either ourselves or the whole rest of 802.3…
Happy New Year, Christian!
Your comment definitely identifies a terminology concern. However, since the “power channel” that you are proposing to define is essentially the same as the “data channel”, I think that adding this term may be confusing.
As an alternate solution, how would the group feel about performing a maintenance request to change the current definition of “channel” to “frequency channel” as in:
1.4.xxx frequency channel: In 10BROAD36, a band of frequencies dedicated to a certain service transmitted on the broadband medium. (See IEEE Std 802.3, Clause 11.)
Note, that occurrences of the word “channel” in Clause 11 may also need to be replaced with “frequency channel”.
And, revising the existing definition of channel as follows:
1.4.134 channel: Within Clause 33 and its annexes, the electrical path on which the power is transferred, i.e. the link section.
I suspect that it might be necessary to extend the definition of channel to other Clauses besides 33, but I just wanted to get the idea out there for consideration.
DISCLAIMER: Siemon makes every attempt to ensure that the content of materials presented or communicated to you is accurate. The content herein is for informational purpose only and Siemon assumes no responsibility or obligation for actions resulting from this content unless otherwise agreed to in writing and signed by both parties.
I prepared a short baseline document in support of comment #26, which addresses my action item in the TDL. Please review and comment.
This message has been checked by ESVA and is believed to be clean. If you think this message is actually spam, please choose one of the options below. Blacklisting will cause email from this sender to never show up in you inbox again.
Click here to mark it as spam.
Click here to blacklist sender