|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Hi George, David,
Moving the 'shall' to the front is good, I'll make that change.
With regard to the other observation, we no longer need to do this.
I erroneously believed that it was compliant for a PD to request any power value over LLDP, including values that are higher than its requested Class.
This is incorrect and never has been the case. See yseboodt_04 I sent out today.
A PD is only allowed to request up to it's requested Class via DLL. Therefore a PD can never be assigned a higher Class than its requested Class.
From: David Stover <00000687aebafbf1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 20:09
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] yseboodt_03_0317: PD Classification text
Clear and obvious break between two statements to promote "shall" language to front of its own sentence; make it more obvious. I like it.
Another observation I had (discussed offline with Lennart), is that the clean-up obviates two "shall" in this section that have a confusing interaction:
Statement #1 (GZ edit): "The PD shall draw no more power across all input voltages than the requested Class during Physical Layer classification..."
Statement #2: "The PD shall conform to the assigned Class, regardless of its requested Class"
I believe we mean to convey:
* If assigned < requested, PD shall conform to assigned Class
* If assigned > requested, PD shall conform to requested Class
where "requested" is "the requested Class during Physical Layer classification".
Then, I recommend we also modify...
From: "The PD shall conform to the assigned Class, regardless of its requested Class"
To: "The PD shall conform to the assigned Class or the class requested by the PD during Physical Layer classification, whichever is lower."
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM, George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: