[10GMMF] Agenda (draft) for March LRM
Dear IEEE 802.3aq,
Attached is the draft agenda for our D1.1 review meeting.
Given the project timeline the primary goal of next weeks meeting is to gain permission from IEEE 802.3 to go to Working Group ballot. According to the IEEE802.3 operating rules the requirements we must meet are the following:
"2.8.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirements
Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in addition have met the following requirements:
a) It must be complete with no open technical issues.
b) It must be made available for pre-view by the membership by the Monday prior to the plenary week. If any changes are made to the draft after the draft was made available for pre-view the textual changes shall be presented for review during the closing plenary immediately prior to the vote for approval to go to WG ballot.
c) It must be formatted according to the IEEE style selected by the WG Chair. This style will be selected to minimize the editorial work required for publication of the draft.
d) It must be approved for submittal to WG ballot at the 802.3 WG closing plenary."
Given the unanimous vote to forward D1.1 to IEEE 802.3 for preview I must manage the meeting to maximize the likelihood of achieving Working Group Ballot. Therefore, I have arranged the agenda so that we complete comment review on the non-rejected technical comments and as many editorial comments as possible on the first day of the IEEE 802.3aq meeting. This will provide our editor with the maximum amount of time to make the edits to the document for the Thursday review of it by IEEE 802.3.
I have reviewed the comments and submitted presentations to confirm that we do not need to hear the submitted presentations to be able to resolve the non-rejected comments. We do however need to hear them before we discuss the rejected comments. Therefore, most of Wednesday is devoted to presentations and to reviewing the rejected comments. The presentations have a lot in common with the issues raised in the rejected comments and so I suggest we go through them first. The rejected comments will likely re-emerge in our first Working Group Ballot. We must review them, understand them, and agree plans to resolve them for the May interim meeting.
To achieve permission for Working Group Ballot in March we must be very disciplined and make only precise changes to the draft. For IEEE 802.3 to allow us to go to WG ballot rough rules-of-thumb would be as follows:
1) D1.2 should have many pages of the draft per D1.1.
2) Pages with edits should have only a few lines or table entries changed.
3) We should give priority to feedback from the IEEE 802.3 pre-viewers not in our group; after all they are our masters.
4) We should do nothing that might reduce the consensus on D1.1 within LRM.
5) Complex changes should be kept for WG Ballot.
To go to Working Group ballot we need a complete draft not an absolutely perfect or correct draft. The draft is complete, some specifications and tests need fine-tuning, some more simulations need to be done. This is normal for this stage of the process.
Regarding the IEEE 802.3 requirement of "no open technical issues": if we have no TBD's, no new functions to add, and our comments are aimed at improving specifications or tests already within the draft, then we have no open technical issues. As far as I can see all the comments we received, even the rejected ones, could not be portrayed as open technical issues.
I will end the meeting at 10:30 AM on Thursday. This is to allow Nick and myself some preparation time to finalize the report we have to give to IEEE 802.3 on Thursday afternoon.
See you in Atlanta,
David
LRM Agenda March 2005.pdf