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

[EFM] RE: Optics TR comments, how to reach you




Piers,

Thanks for noting the relevance of #493 to my comment, which I had
almost missed. I'm sorry if my previous wording was unclear.

This is a mathematical equation and should thus be phrased as such.

Mathematical equations typically use single-letter variables, but
can also use multicharacter variable names or subscripts.
Spaces are not used, since they complicate the parsing and
interpretation of the variable operations.

If pushed on this convention I'll look for formal conventions in the
"James and James Mathematics Dictionary, Kluwer publishing",
or be sure to include it within the next revision.

Suggested remedy:

  jitterTransfer= log(20)[upstreamJitter/downstreamJitter]       60-2

  where
     jitterTransfer is ... (you know better than I)
     upstreamJitter is the jitter measured on the upstream signal, specified
       in fractions on a unit interval (UI), as specified in xx.
     upstreamJitter is the jitter measured on the upstream signal, specified
       in fractions on a unit interval (UI), as specified in xx.

I believe you will also find this to be consistent with the IEEE Style
manual. I'm not picky with the detailed wording of upstreamJitter, but do
feel the definition should be relatively clear and provide a cross-reference
(if possible).

I believe that you will also find that the definition of the "where"
terms is beyond the safe limits of IEEE editing, which is why such changes
should be addressed by the WG.

The term "unit interval" must be spelled out on each use, unless UI
is included in the abbreviations (it did not appear to be located there).

I did not mean to change the division operand, but was somewhat
limited to the ASCII characters that I could type. Thus, no change
the the existing horizontal line is proposed.

DVJ
P.S. I've CC'd this to a wider audience, simply due to its broader
applicability
to the styles used within other portions of the draft.



David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
      +1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: piers_dawe@agilent.com [mailto:piers_dawe@agilent.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:43 PM
>> To: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> Cc: wdiab@cisco.com; Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com; SwansonSE@corning.com;
>> Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: Optics TR comments, how to reach you
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> re 495, your interpretation is correct.  Thank you.
>>
>> re 493, as the items concerned, e.g. "Jitter on upstream signal
>> UI" to become "Jitter on upstream signal (UI)" per current
>> resolution of comment, is not a formal name of a digital
>> variable which is used somewhere else, but a natural English
>> phrase in ordinary words with units, describing something which
>> otherwise doesn't have and doesn't need a name in this document,
>> it is likely that the optics editors or optics track at the
>> meeting will be unwilling to take any action with regards to the
>> kind of "digital" variable names that might be used with
>> registers or in software, on the basis of this comment.  I see
>> that there are other comments in the database, e.g. 442, 445
>> which allow one of the other tracks with more experience in this
>> matter to address naming conventions as they choose.
>>
>> (And by the way, the author of the comment draft response was
>> not the editor of the clause concerned.)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Piers Dawe
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
>> Sent: 17 September 2003 00:52
>> To: piers_dawe@agilent.com; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org
>> Cc: wdiab@cisco.com; Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com; SwansonSE@corning.com
>> Subject: RE: Optics TR comments, how to reach you
>>
>> Piers,
>>
>> In response to:
>> >> 495	James, David	60		307	39	TR
>> >> 	What is the meaning of "The Standard"
>>
>> I'm not quite sure that I've interpreted your response
>> correctly. My interpretation is that these words "The Standard"
>> and "should" are now gone and sufficient cross-references are
>> provided.
>> If my rough interpretation is the same as yours, this is good
>> and I accept.
>> Thanks for your diligence on this item.
>>
>> In response to:
>> >> Comment 493:
>> >> Comment>> Spaces in variable names cause confusion.
>> I would also be happy with a response that defers the
>> notational questions to an adhoc committee that attempts
>> to define a notational guidance subclause, to which other
>> subclauses will attempt to conform.
>>
>> DVJ
>>
>>
>> David V. James
>> 3180 South Ct
>> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>>       +1.650.856.9801
>> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
>> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: piers_dawe@agilent.com [mailto:piers_dawe@agilent.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:46 PM
>> >> To: dvj@alum.mit.edu; Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org
>> >> Cc: wdiab@cisco.com; Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com; SwansonSE@corning.com
>> >> Subject: RE: Optics TR comments, how to reach you
>> >>
>> >> Dear Dr James,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for your TR comments.  Below is what the optics track
>> >> decided for them.  If you would like to suggest any improved
>> >> response before then, we can look at it tomorrow morning.
>> >> Alternatively if you are satisfied with some or all of the
>> >> responses, please reply to me and Wael at your earliest convenience.
>> >>
>> >> My mobile is +44 7900-135516.
>> >>
>> >> I have just opened your email containing:
>> >>
>> >> Comment 493:
>> >> Comment>> Spaces in variable names cause confusion.
>> >> Change all variable names to be runTogetherWords.
>> >> Rejection>>
>> >> PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.
>> >> This reviewer is not confused by the spaces, and prefers the
>> readability.
>> >> Rebuttal>> Variable names with spaces cause several problems:
>> >> 1) They often mandate Capitals which Makes it Hard to Read.
>> >> 2) Its hard to notate fields within registers, such as
>> registerSet.goBit
>> >> 3) The author of the comment is probably the editor, so _anything_
>> >>    will appear clear to him/her. Its the novice reader that is
>> >> the concern.
>> >>
>> >> But this was not brought to the meeting's attention today.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> Piers Dawe
>> >> Acting EFM optics editor
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 493	James, David	60		302	49	TR
>> >> 	Spaces in variable names cause confusion.
>> >> 	Change all variable names to be runTogetherWords.
>> >>
>> >> 	ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.
>> >> This reviewer is not confused by the spaces, and prefers the
>> >> readability.  These variables are not state variables used in a
>> >> state machine.
>> >>
>> >> Insert subscript 10 after log.  Put UI in brackets (twice).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 495	James, David	60		307	39	TR
>> >> 	What is the meaning of "The Standard"
>> >> 	"1) Provide a cross-reference to where Toff maximum value
>> >> is specified.
>> >> 2) Eliminat the ""should"" in the second second, which is
>> >> implied by the maximum value specification already."
>> >>
>> >> 	ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.
>> >>
>> >> The necessary information is already given in 60.8.13.1.  Delete
>> >> the two-sentence paragraph beginning "The standard", three
>> >> occurrences, and any similar in 60.  In 60.8.13.2.1 around line
>> >> 35, add references to table 60-7 and twin.
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
>> >> Sent: 10 September 2003 21:12
>> >> To: Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org; Meir Bartur; John F. Ewen; Geoff Thompson;
>> >> Richard Brand
>> >> Cc: Wael Diab; Thomas (Tom) Murphy; Piers Dawe; Steven E Swanson;
>> >> Bradley Booth
>> >> Subject: RE: Optics TR comments, how to reach you
>> >>
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> In an email to another portion of the EFM group, I noted:
>> >>
>> >> My current time commitments are:
>> >>   8:00-10:00 PDT Tuesday 2003Sep16
>> >>   9:00-14:00 PDT Wednesday 2003Sep17
>> >>
>> >> If you find it useful to have multiple connections,
>> >> consider freeconference.com. We have used it extensively
>> >> in 802.17 and the charges (none, except for normal
>> >> long distance, when using standard service) are great!
>> >>
>> >> I can be called as early as 6:00AM and as late as 23:00, PDT.
>> >> Some warning on the call time would be appreciated, so that
>> >> I can:
>> >>   1) Be sure I don't step out
>> >>   2) Avoid conflicts between simultaneous calls.
>> >>
>> >> Hope that helps,
>> >> DVJ
>> >> P.S. I'm a bit lax about having my cell phone handy,
>> >> so always try the home number also.
>> >>
>> >> David V. James
>> >> 3180 South Ct
>> >> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> >> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> >>       +1.650.856.9801
>> >> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> >> Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
>> >> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> David V. James
>> >> 3180 South Ct
>> >> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> >> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> >>       +1.650.856.9801
>> >> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> >> Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
>> >> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Vipul Bhatt [mailto:Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org]
>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:24 AM
>> >> >> To: Meir Bartur; John F. Ewen; dvj@alum.mit.edu; Geoff
>> >> Thompson; Richard
>> >> >> Brand
>> >> >> Cc: Wael Diab; Thomas (Tom) Murphy; Piers Dawe; Steven E Swanson;
>> >> >> Bradley Booth
>> >> >> Subject: Optics TR comments, how to reach you
>> >> >> Importance: High
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear optics TR commenter,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Will you be attending the EFM meeting next week? If not, we
>> >> need to make
>> >> >> arrangements about how and when to reach you, in order to build a
>> >> >> satisfactory resolution of your comment(s). Considering
>> the time zone
>> >> >> difference with Italy, can you suggest a daily block of time
>> >> next week,
>> >> >> Monday through Thursday, when you can be reached by phone?
>> Will you be
>> >> >> able to respond quickly by email? And just to be sure, please
>> >> >> confirm your
>> >> >> phone number. Please "Reply All" in this message. Someone
>> >> from this group
>> >> >> will contact you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sincerely,
>> >> >> Vipul
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Vipul Bhatt
>> >> >> 650-941-6290 office
>> >> >> 408-857-1973 mobile
>> >> >> 408-516-9631 fax
>> >> >> vipul_bhatt@ieee.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>