Re: [802.3af] Comment #172
I would suggest that, somewhere in the ballot package, we put a refined
version of your explanation of why we don't need to touch Clause 25 or
TP-PMD for 100 Mb/s. If it heads off a comment that causes a recirc then it
will have been worth the effort.
At 11:00 AM 1/24/2003 -0500, Mike_S_McCormack@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>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.