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

[802.3af] inadequate power PSEs

... pardon the tongue-in-cheek title ...

This issue really has me torn.

Mike's rationale is great, and Geoff's concerns are also 110% valid.

I'm going to speak up, since I haven't for a long time. I support the low-power-warning label "deal" for the following reasons:

1. Power-limit-at-the-socket paradigms are a fact of life in our consumer society. Having a label stating this is a bonus that isn't always offered; my car's cigarette lighter socket, which cannot source enough power to perform that function, is so labeled. The AC outlet in the guest bathroom can't source 20A, and isn't labeled. The circuit breaker is. Mike cites some .3 precedent but that isn't a concern to me. A 4 watt port is OK as long as you tell me about it, and besides, that's why they make polyfuses.

2. I didn't like the classification idea from the get-go, which, as you'll recall, started out as an optional feature. Having this 'feature' opens up (encourages) the possibility of deployment of poorly-architected .af systems, defined by me as those not capable of delivering battery-backed-up full power on all ports. Now that someone WANTS to sell such a system ON PURPOSE (even worse than the power allocation scheme) I say, go ahead. As long as it's labeled. Make sure the warning-label color is specified as bright yellow; caveat emptor. I also think that power-allocated ports ought to be so indicated by a blinking yellow port-status LED, but I never thought I'd get anywhere with such a proposal.

3. Oh, yeah: I mentioned power-allocated systems in #2. If we allow them, we have explicitly already allowed what Mike wants. I admit ignorance of the discussion-goings-on since I no longer can attend the .af meetings, but, heck. Why the fuss?

Nomex suit on.