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

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend

Thanks, Yair –

Yes, unfortunately there seem to be variable delays in the reflector, so I don’t always see your latest response first. 

One of the things we lose with the “TDL” is tracking who owns what.  We’ll see what Mr. Stover says.

I don’t know if we have a sheet attaching each TDL to an original comment #, but that would be helpful in closing out these items – then it seems if the TDL assignee and the original commenter agree there is no longer any issue, we should be able to withdraw it.

From: Yair Darshan [mailto:YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 10:12 AM
To: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend


Hi George,

If it was my comment, I would withdraw it but this is David Stover comment and it was assigned to me to resolve.

As a result, It is Davids call..

(I can only withdraw my comment for D2.3 on the subject however, I need that in the remedy we will have a record why we got to the result we got.)

See my answer to Chad on this subject.



From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 5:53 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend



I agree with Chad.  We need to be efficient with our meeting time.  If someone wishes to discuss this comment further, please respond to the reflector.  Otherwise, it would be nice to just save the time by withdrawing the comment. (Chad – you may wish to give people a deadline to respond)


From: Chad Jones (cmjones) [mailto:cmjones@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:20 PM
To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend


Proposed Remedy:Group to discuss. Meanwhile, no changes required to the spec.

I’m supremely confused.


What would we discuss if there are no changes to the spec? If you guys have decided no changes are required and the TDL is closed, please just withdraw the comment and presentation.



Chad Jones

Tech Lead, Cisco Systems

Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force


From: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM
To: 4PPOE Reflector <STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend


Hi guys,

Please review final work.




From: Picard, Jean [mailto:jean_picard@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 11:14 PM
To: Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend





See below






From: Yair Darshan [mailto:YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:02 AM
To: Picard, Jean
Cc: Yair Darshan
Subject: Question regarding #253 D2.3 - Resend


Did you see the mail?

Thanks, Yair


Hi Jean,

I been told by Lennart that you were the designer of the PSE dual-sig state machine so I guess you can clarify some of my questions below.


I was assigned to resolve TDL#253 from D.2 for this meeting. This was a comment from David Stover which says the following:


PSE Class SD for dual-signature PDs is inconsistent with

recent developments in single-signature Class SD. Particularly, state CLASS_4PID4 is inconsistent with the notion that pd_req_pwr and therefore pd_cls_4pid are known after 3 (not 4) class events. Also, the "pse_allocated_pwr" paradigm is not implemented for PSE dual-signature Class SD.

TDL (Yair):

1.       Implement pse_allocated_pwr scheme from single-signature PSE Class SD into dual-signature PSE Class SD.

2.       Modify pd_cls_4pid logic such that pd_cls_4pid_* are determined out of CLASS_EV3_* states."



1.       David says that we need to sync the PSE classification SM for single signature to D2.4 page 137 and 138 PSE dual-sig SM. I understand the main differences between them (I hope..).

My question is, why to make changes just for they will use the same concept. If the current dual-signature state machine is correct, why to change it?

>> JP: I think the same, unless we think it’s important to indicate the allocated power in the state diagram. If such change is to be done, it has to be done with minimal impact on SD complexity.

2.       Regarding his 2nd point: why you locate pd_cls_4pid_pri/sec after the class event 4 and not after class event 3?

>>JP: that statement is not accurate, the 4PID block is in fact located at 2 locations, always the last block just before reaching the last Mark state (after 3 or 4 events). Why the second after 4 events? If the 4th class is different than the 3rd, the 4PID is not set. I don’t see anything to change here, really.





Darshan Yair

Chief R&D Engineer

Analog Mixed Signal Group

Microsemi Corporation


1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220
Neve Ne'eman Industrial Zone
Hod Hasharon 45421, Israel
Tel:  +972-9-775-5100, EXT 210.

Cell: +972-54-4893019
Fax: +972-9-775-5111


E-mail: <mailto:ydarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.