|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
OK, good, so we do need circuitry.Thus it becomes:FALSE: The circuitry that applies operating voltage to the Primary alternative is disabled.TRUE: The circuitry that applies operating voltage to the Secondary alternative is enabled.LennartOn Thu, 2017-10-19 at 18:56 +0000, Yair Darshan wrote:
I kept the word circuitry in there, because it is already referenced in the definition. I could live with your suggestion, but I recall (maybe incorrectly) that the reason that the statement was in terms of enabling or disabling the circuitry was to make it clear that the variable is TRUE in the inrush state where the voltage is ramping up and may not quite be established.
Hi George, Chad,
I am in favor of this. It is descriptive and does not venture in either the past or the future.
There are a couple of PoDL subtleties in there that we might be able to drop though:
FALSE: The PSE applies operating voltage to the primary Alternative
TRUE: The PSE does not apply operating voltage to the primary Alternative.
Did I delete anything we need to keep ?
On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 17:34 +0000, Chad Jones (cmjones) wrote:
I think George has hit on something here. Let’s discuss this solution:
A variable that controls the circuitry that the PSE uses to power the PD over the Alternative that has been assigned as Primary.
FALSE: The circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the Primary alternative of the PI is disabled.
TRUE: The circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the Primary alternative of the PI is enabled.
A variable that controls the circuitry that the PSE uses to power the PD over the Alternative that has been assigned as Secondary.
FALSE: The circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the Secondary alternative of the PI is disabled.
TRUE: The circuitry that applies full operating voltage to the Secondary alternative of the PI is enabled.
Are there holes in this solution?
Tech Lead, Cisco Systems
Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force
Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
I understand the principle you want to follow. Please note that the additional description in the TRUE case of detection and classification was added due to the importance of not power unless these action where done while in the FALSE case obviously they are not required.
Logically there is no reason to make the changes you propose.
The question is now if to have for that matter short description or clear description. In this case I preffer clear description i.e. keep it as is but to clean the “will” issue.
We discussed this at the last meeting and I feel we did not end up with a good solution.
The definition of variables should be restricted to what the variable does or represents.
These variables' "TRUE" description includes behaviour that (should have) happened in the past, as well as making a forward looking statement.
If we look at how these variables are actually used, the definition really is very simple:
FALSE = The PSE is not to apply power to the XYZ Alternative.
TRUE = The PSE is to apply power to the XYZ Alternative.