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

RE: Specifying Discovery


You represent yourself, perhaps as a member of the IC Vendor community. You 
don't represent anyone else in 802.3 unless you have a liaison position. 
Membership is by individual.

I am not disagreeing with the merit of your point of view, quite the 
contrary. There are significant legal and traditional reasons why we need 
to define interface parameters and characteristics rather than an 
implementation. An example implementation that satisfies our requirements 
my be helpful though.


At 09:13 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Schwartz, Peter wrote:

>Representing the IC vendor community, I couldn't agree more.  Each vendor
>bring specific expertise and specific process capabilities to the Discovery
>task. Therefore innovation and competition are encouraged by defining
>criteria, and leaving methodology to the implementer.
>As Roger Karam says, my 2c.
>Peter Schwartz
>Applications Engineer
>Micrel Semiconductor
>Phone:  408.435.2460
>FAX:    408.456.0490
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Larry Miller [SMTP:ldmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>         Sent:   Friday, November 17, 2000 7:17
>         To:     Paul Moore; stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
>         Subject:        RE: Specifying Discovery
>         I agree.... The parameters of the loop belong in the Standard, the
>way you measure them is implementation (not in the Standard).
>         Larry Miller
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Moore, Paul [SC5:321-M:EXCH]
>         Sent:   Thursday, November 16, 2000 3:33 PM
>         To:     stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
>         Subject:        Specifying Discovery
>         I'm sure others have already thought of this, but having a dialog
>might help us get to completion sooner, so here goes.
>         Now that there is a discovery method on the table I began thinking
>about how we specify it.  Seems to me we only need to specify the identity
>network on the PD end, some sort of simple limitations on the PSE discovery
>signals, and then put an annex in the standard showing a proven
>implementation.  The actual method used to do discovery in the PSE should be
>left to the individual implementor.  Things like radiated and conducted
>noise, noise susceptibility, ESD susceptibility, etc. need not be in the
>spec., but an annex might point out the relevant documents governing them.
>I'm sure I've missed a few things here, but seems to me the actual spec.
>part is pretty short.  Comments??
>         \Paul
>         Paul B. Moore
>         Senior Manager, Hardware Engineering
>         Small Business Solutions - Santa Clara
>         Nortel Networks
>         4401 Great America Parkway
>         PO Box 58185, MS SC05-02
>         Santa Clara, CA  95052-8185
>         Phone: 408-495-2466
>         FAX: 408-495-5615