RE: Specifying Discovery
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
peter.schwartz@micrel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Miller [SMTP:ldmiller@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 7:17
To: Paul Moore; stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@ieee.org
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@ieee.org
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