| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Chad, See below. Yair From: Chad Jones (cmjones) [mailto:cmjones@xxxxxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL Or you are saying D2.3 comment that Stover made that you were assigned to close? Yair: Yes. If that is the case, that would be because you disagreed with his comment and asked for time to work it out – WITH DAVE. Yair: No. It wasn’t the case. He just made a comment without
suggesting remedy. The group felt that we need to address it, and I volunteered to do address it.
If you have concluded that we don’t need to make a change but you didn’t do that with Dave, then you didn’t do your job. Yair: Again, incorrect conclusion. I have concluded the work and the suggested remedy is the way I prefer to go in order to hear the interested parties including
David Stover. It is preferable to do it prior the meeting and if necessary during the meeting. I don’t see a problem with this approach. I got Lennart response and I have my response and I waited for Jean response since he was the guy that was originally work on this state machine part and he
respond just few days ago. Once it was ready I send it to the reflector and still waiting for inputs. I spoke with David today. I share with him my conclusions and it is up to him now if he is satisfied or not.
All we can do now is resurrect comment 253 from 2.3 and discuss it again – unless Dave resubmitted it. Mr. Stover? Yair: Chad, this is really not a big issue how to handle this comment. Allot of time invested to understand what the commenter wants and to figure out the
best response. We have a lot to do and let’s concentrate on the technical
work. We can do what you are proposing or simply follow the suggested remedy that is in my comment that covers David Stover comment. If David is OK with my conclusion
we are done with this comment. If he disagrees, we can keep it in the TODO list for after the sponsor ballot since the issue is not that something is broken. Yair Chad Jones Tech Lead, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force From:
Chad Jones <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx> ‘David Stover’s comment but it was assigned to me to resolve’. Who assigned it to you to resolve? Chad Jones Tech Lead, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force From:
Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 David’s 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. Yair From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL 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]
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> Hi guys, Please review final work. Regards Yair From: Picard, Jean [mailto:jean_picard@xxxxxx]
EXTERNAL EMAIL Yair See below Regards Jean From: Yair Darshan [mailto:YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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.
Thanks
Yair
Darshan Yair Chief R&D Engineer Analog Mixed Signal Group Microsemi Corporation 1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220 Cell: +972-54-4893019
E-mail: <mailto:ydarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>. |