On Feb 10, 2023, at 11:48 AM, ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger,
I’ll do that then. I’ll send a snapshot of comments if I am unable to complete a pass through the document by Monday. (That will allow two weeks before the 27 February initial ballot close.
A summary of the major RAC relevant issues I find:
1. Some described RA policies are slightly off from the way I understand them. For example assignment of additional address blocks.
2. The draft citing a superseded (and not publicly available) tutorial (including a quote that is no longer an exact match). I favor only current information in Std 802 (except for Annex E where relevant history should be recorded). This affects perhaps a half dozen citations of the tutorial and multiple footnotes.
3. I believe the RA history is inaccurate, and certainly want input from GeoffT on that. While an exact history isn’t important to most readers of Std 802, recording some things incorrectly might cause problems in the future. I was active in SA governance when a kerfuffle, or was it kerfuffles, required staff to investigate the actual agreement(s) between IEEE and ISO/IEC. A major point is that I recall it was IEEE being recognized, not the IEEE RA, by ISO/IEC. I’m not sure when the RA was created, for example, IEEE Std 802.3-1985 points people at the Secretary, IEEE Standards Board, not the RA. It is clear that 8802 standards work existed at that time, but it isn’t clear that the RA was a clear organizational entity. I expect other RAC members will remember the creation of IEEE SA (I do have a three digit SA PIN), so the history should clearly identify what is current and not assume the RA has existed throughout.
4. Most of the URLs don’t get one to the intended web page. I raise the issue for discussion, I recall 802.1 favoring pointing directly at a tutorial, even though such a URL isn’t assured to be durable, and that should once again be discussed. The RAC may also want to revisit the durable URL list, and what the RAC role should be in RA related web site updates.
—Bob
On Feb 9, 2023, at 8:51 PM, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob,
I am interested and hope you will share your comments. Though it’s unconventional for the RAC to submit comments in WG ballot, I agree that it’s a good idea to get an early start on RAC consensus.
On Feb 9, 2023 at 6:54 PM -0700, ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@xxxxxxx>, wrote:
Colleagues,
Most of you should have been notified of the current initial IEEE 802 working group ballot on the revision of Std 802. As an 802.3 voter, I will be submitting comments via the 802.3 Chair.
Because this standard has significant registry related content, and I am generating many personal comments that I would suggest for the RAC Mandatory Coordination if text is unchanged, I wonder if RAC members would be interested in seeing my comments or somehow generating some consensus between RAC members if others are similarly finding content within RAC purview.
BTW, I’m about 2/3 through the document (page 53 of the 88 page draft), with 15 of my 35 comments so far something I would propose for Mandatory Coordination.
—Bob
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-RAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-RAC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-RAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-RAC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-RAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-RAC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
|