|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Updated version attached, incorporating comments from Yair and Chad.
With regard to the ‘connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE’ I have used different wording which I think better explains the intent.
Saying Type 4 / Class 8 is factually incorrect. What we mean to say is that it takes up to 3 class events to really discover the requested Class of the PD.
From: Chad Jones (cmjones) <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 23:47
To: Yseboodt, Lennart; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] yseboodt_03_0317: PD Classification text
Mutual ID is the term we invented for AT and I think it is appropriate to keep it in BT.
Additionally, classification is used to establish mutual identification between the PSE and the PD to discover each others’ Type.
The requested Class of the PD is the Class the PD advertises during Physical Layer classification, and represents the maximum power, as defined in Table 145–24 and Table 145–25, that a PD shall draw across all input voltages.
I had a similar comment and I agree with what you did here but I think you deleted a relevant piece of information: “The requested Class of the PD is the Class a PD advertises during Physical Layer classification when connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE;”. The ‘connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE’ phrase struck me as odd at first but then it became clear that this is a way of saying request the max power on the physical layer. I think it is important to leave in. So I would say add the phrase “when connected to a Type 4, Class 8 PSE” back to your sentence.
Tech Lead, Cisco Systems
Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force
We saw significant changes to the PD classification text due to the Clause split, on top of a nice cleanup action by Heath adopted in January.
Some rectification and further cleanup attached.