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

Re: [802.3_DIALOG] Draft preview

Bob - thank you for your preview of the draft and your comments.
I want to assure you that the blank table and editor's notes in clause 78 were caught as part of this comment review, if this isn't the place you mean, then please let me know.
Regarding your other comments, I would like to understand better the Clause 30 issue, and will look for you in Berlin to discuss. I should be arriving on Sunday evening.

- George Zimmerman, Editor, IEEE P802.3bq Task Force

Cl 80 SC 80.1.5 P 752 L 23 # 194
Comment Type ER
Table 80-2 doesn't have row added indicated in the Editing instruction and Editor's note
Implement editors note adding 40GBASE-T to Table 80-2, and remove editor's note (retain
Editing Instruction)
Comment Status D

-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT GROW [mailto:bobgrow@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_DIALOG] Draft preview

Mr. Chalupsky:

Clause 30 - in reviewing your draft, I would recommend your TF consider encouraging you to comment on the P802.3 revision for the Clause 30 changes adding Clause numbers to the definitions.  (I am working with the two T1 projects for common changes we need and hope to get it together with those TFs so that all three lower speed projects buy into the changes by P802.3 initial Sponsor ballot to simplify our amendments.).  In the case of this proposed change, it would be much better if all projects amending IEEE Std 802.3-20xx had the same model to follow when adding their own enumerations, and we will all have to go to the approved 20xx base text at some point in our draft review/balloting.  Though not a technical completeness issue and recognizing that P802.3 Sponsor ballot may begin before our May meeting, I hope you will discuss with your TF and perhaps Maintenance in Berlin. 

Clause 78 - The blank rows and Editor's note on adding EEE parameters suggests that the draft is not technically complete.  

Clauses 78, 80, 81 - Not a technical completeness issue, these should be a changed clause, not included under the Insert new clauses and annexes instruction.  Clause 78 changes obviously will require individual editing instructions.  

General - Not an issue for going to WG ballot, I will probably comment on the frequent use of "as appropriate" in your editing instructions.  (Publication editors may not be comfortable with making judgements of what is appropriate.)  I assume this might be because of the number of parallel amendment projects, things might need to be adjusted.  Might be better to add something like "(base text may not show changes made by other amendments to IEEE Std 802.3-20xx)" to the editing instructions or as an editor's note to changed clauses.  An alternate might be an Editor's Note especially for things like Clause 45 where reserved bits/registers may or may not be adjusted at publication based on approvals of other amendments that add definitions of bits/registers listed as reserved in IEEE Std 802.3-20xx.