Re: [8023-POEP] Call for Presentations

[Yair Darshan <YairD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 

Good point Geoff.

We certainly whish to enhance the standard not to change it.

 

 

Yair

 

---

From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:01 PM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] Call for Presentations

 

Mike-

A little fine tuning of your wording here.
You use both terms "revision" and "amendment" in your discussion below

At 01:49 PM 12/22/2004 -0500, Michael McCormack wrote:

Distinct Identity

-Substantially different from other 802.3 specifications/ solutions.

-Unique solution for problem (not two alternatives/ problem).

-Easy for document reader to select relevant spec.

If we structure the Task Force as a revision to clause 33, we should not be in much trouble here.  However, the decision on what the project scope should be will be made in the upcoming meetings.  If anyone is an advocate for making a new clause and not amending clause 33 then they should prepare themselves to discuss these items.

I strongly feel that we should not be using the word "revision" in the paperwork for this project.
In IEEE terminology a "revision" opens the entire work to modification.
Alternatively, an "amendment" is to add to an existing standard (though it does not strictly preclude changes to the existing standard).

I believe that the consensus that we arrived at and was presented to 802.3 when they granted us SG status was to augment the present capability of 802.3af, not to change it.

Geoff

P