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

Re: [802.3af] Comment #172

Ah, something we can agree on (in principle.)

I have no problem with your choice of words, I will create a "Revision B"
of the change pages to incorporate the words prior to Tuesday.  I have  a
slight problem with the commas, but only in the second sentence.  While
they do not effect the meaning as far as I am concerned, true linguists
will say (and rightly so perhaps,) that we have changed the meaning for
existing designs.  This is a rat hole I would just as soon not get into,
I'll gladly add them to our new sentence but I would rather not add them to
the existing text.  And yes, the changes would be happily made in clause 40
as well, again preserving existing punctuation for the same cowardly

The exclamation point in the expression "!PD:M" is, I am informed, proper
post clause 21 syntax for "for Non-PD implementation this is mandatory."
That is, legacy or new non-PD devices, so the exclamation point is

TP-PMD does not need changing, I believe double insulated PDs that operate
at 100BASE-TX only would be legal.  The problem with the existing text for
10 and 1000 is that it specifys isolation at a particular place in the
design, right at the physical layer.  TP-PMD does not seem to have the same
constraint, so a double insulated 100BASE-TX device would be OK.  Being
cowardly, I see no need to point this up, as the existing text by which we
included TP-PMD did not have any isolation changes and hence we could be in
for a huge renumbering exercise depending on where "power that be"
determined the new exception should be added.  As this is not strictly
necessary, I say avoid it.