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

Re: [802.3_4PPOE] Comment for IEEE P802.3bt/D3.4 ballot



Hi Janine,

Comment:
The definition of "invalid" is ambiguous in regard to the open circuit condition. 
Is this an open circuit on both pairsets or either pairset? 
"Invalid" was spawned from "open_circ" in the remedy to comment 108 against D1.7. 
In the process, the qualifier "on both pairsets" was removed from the definition of open circuit. 

Proposed remedy:
Change: "Neither a single-signature nor a dual-signature configuration has been found. 
This includes an open circuit condition."  
To: "Neither a single-signature nor a dual-signature configuration has been found. 
This includes an open circuit condition on either pairset."

Can you elaborate what problem this comment solves ?
Depending on if we mean "either pairset" or "both pairsets" this does change behavior in the state diagram when only one pairset is an open circuit.

Kind regards,

Lennart

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 19:08 +0000, Janine Tinsley (jatallma) wrote:

Hello,

 

I have submitted a late comment for the ballot and expect that a motion will be made to include the comment resolution. Please find attached the comment, which suggests a clarification to the open circuit condition which may result in a PSE’s “do_cxn_chk” returning an invalid condition.

 

With regards,

Janine Tinsley


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-4PPOE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-4PPOE&A=1