| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Greetings to those interested in making improvements to the IEEE802.3 standard. Below is a brief email exchange history between David and myself regarding comments I made on IEEE 802.3au (IEEE P802.3-2005/Cor 1) D1.0. I have attached my rebuttal to the comment responses made by the interim committee reviewing the comments. This reflector message in accommodation of David's request. Due to personal family medical priorities, I was not able to be in my office last week as I had planned. Many concerned and conscientious members of the IEEE802.3 body provided comments, good and helpful comments, on the corrigendum ballot text to aid in the improvement and clarification of the standard. I do not take lightly the casual rejection of good and helpful contributions to an effort to clarify an area of the standard that has been the topic of many interpretation requests. The IEEE802.3 standard is indeed in need of clarification, correction, and consistency as a whole in the area of isolation and closely related environmental considerations and grounding. I believe the corrigendum falls short of its PAR objective and intent, "Current specifications are confusing to implementers, and consequently we are receiving a significant number of interpretation requests on isolation, and this would be reduced with improved text." I ask those interested to review the PAR, the balloted corrigendum text, the comments and interim committee responses, and my rebuttal and consider the fact that the ballot passed...overwhelmingly! I hope my rebuttal is a good read. Best Regards to all, Robert Busse -----Original Message----- From: David_Law@3com.com [mailto:David_Law@3com.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:42 AM To: Robert Busse Subject: RE: Required comments against IEEE 802.3auDTE Power Isolation cor rigendum Hi Robert, Just wanted to say thank you for your reply. As I know you are aware the comment responses, as well as the changes to the draft agreed, at the meeting a couple of weeks ago cannot be changed at this point - and that of course I cannot speak for the group. Regardless of this I personally would still like to continue a dialogue with you over your concerns and hopefully you comment by comment responses will help with this. As part of that I would like to ask if it is okay when I reply to them to CC others who I think would be interested and would also like to comment - I wouldn't do this without your okay so I thought I should check with you first. What I am trying to achieve with this is a level of off-line consensus building before the next meeting - of course I'd be more that happy if you wanted to send your comment by comment responses to the Task Force e-mail reflector - everybody could then participate and/or observe as they see fit. Thanks and regards, David Robert Busse <robertb@transition.com> wrote on 23/01/2006 13:38:54: > David, > Thank you for the message. > I do feel strongly that the isolation text in the IEEE802.3 standard is > inconsistent, incomplete, and confusing and has been for some time and must > be highlighted, exposed, and corrected. The corrigendum effort provides > such an opportunity and that is why resolution to my comments is 'required'. > If the isolation text is not made consistent with this effort, a barrage of > maintenance and interpretation requests should be forthcoming to force the > issue until it is remedied or IEEE802.3 copper segments will continue to be > further corrupted. > I was disappointed not to be able to attend the interim meeting but my > responsibilities required I be elsewhere. I do plan on participating in the > conference call on 2/16. > I will respond comment by comment to you later this week as I have > commitments until then and a few short phrases do not suffice. > Clearly, I am disappointed with the response to all my comments except > perhaps #5. Even my tentatively accepted comment, #6, was not accepted in > total with regard to 'accessible external conductors'. > I do indeed feel that the goal of the PAR is not being satisfied by the > corrigendum as it is currently written and furthermore the response to and > rejection of my comments based on disjoint and inconsistent logic actually > exemplifies the discontinuity, confusion, and obfuscation of the isolation > requirement in the IEEE802.3 standard. > I am not asking for anything other than consistency and clarification in the > standard for all isolation text for the benefit of those implementing the > standard as the PAR indicates. If the membership determines otherwise then > it will become obvious that IEEE802.3 desires to keep the isolation > requirement subjective. > Best Regards, > Robert Busse > > -----Original Message----- > From: David_Law@3com.com [mailto:David_Law@3com.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:25 AM > To: Robert Busse > Cc: McCormack, Michael > Subject: Required comments against IEEE 802.3auDTE Power Isolation > corrigendum > > Hi Robert, > Thank you for your comments against IEEE 802.3au (IEEE Std 802.3-2005/Cor > 1) DTE Power Isolation corrigendum. The Task Force met last week to > consider the comments submitted and the responses can be found at the URL: > http://www.ieee802.org/3/au/comments/D1.0/802.3au_D1p0.pdf > Since you indicated that five of your comments were 'required' I wonder if > you could inform me, on a comment by comment basis, if the response > satisfy you. If the response to a particular comment does satisfy you that > comment will not need to included in the recirculation package. If however > you indicate the response to a particular comment does not satisfy you, or > if you don't have time to respond, as the default, the comment will be > included in the recirculation package. > Best regards, > David Law
Comment Response Rebuttal-1.pdf