Re: [802SEC] Status of P802.3an conditional submittal to RevCom
The P802.3an/D4.0 comment resolution meeting was held Wednesday, 24 May,
as part of the 802.3 interim sessions. As expected no changes were made
to the draft. Per 802.3 rules, the project Task Force is designated as
the ballot resolution committee (BRC). Approximately 20 people attended
the meeting in person. Because of the small number of comments and
projected brief duration of the BRC meeting, a teleconference capability
was provided to assure all interested parties could participate in the
comment resolution process. About a half dozen individuals
teleconferenced into the BRC meeting. All final responses were agreed
to without opposition. Reiterating, none of the comments were binding
(none were associated with a negative ballot).
The final comment responses will soon be posted as part of this week's
meeting minutes at:
These responses do not disagree in substance from the draft responses
presented last week to the EC. Two comments were rejected as proposed.
The two comments that include recommendations to the publication editor
were changed from Reject to Accept in Principle. A counted vote was
taken on each if the BRC determined the recommended publication change
as editorial, with the motions and counts added to the comment response.
(The votes were 18, 0, 0 and 19, 0, 0 with only in-person attendees
In addition, both of these comments were reviewed prior to the BRC
meeting and the publication editor provided an initial opinion that both
Subsequent to the adjournment of the P802.3an BRC meeting, P802.3ap
found an item of concern in P802.3an. (Where appropriate, P802.3ap is
using P802.3an base text.) We have registers and bits in Clause 22 that
provide status and control capabilities. With the continuing evolution
of Ethernet, we needed a different and larger register space. This was
defined in clause 45 when doing 10 Gigabit Ethernet (P802.3ae).
P802.3an has defined a copy of the clause 22 registers in the clause 45
register space to support autonegotiation between 10GBASE-T and lower
speeds (e.g., 1000BASE-T). In copying the registers, two bits were
swapped in a table, but text indicates that the clause 45 register are a
copy of the clause 22 registers.
It is expected that P802.3ap will fix this conflict in P802.3an making
the text correct (reversing the transposition in the table thus matching
clause 22 bit assignments). Because P802.3an had adjourned, P802.3ap
will be making a recommendation to the P802.3an publication editor to
add a NOTE to explain this proposed change to the users of P802.3an.
The draft proposed NOTE is:
"NOTE -- The encoding of bits 13 and 6 is stated to be the same as
Clause 22 in the body text above but Table 45-4 is not aligned to the
Clause 22 definition. This encoding of these bits in Table 45-4 is
expected to be aligned to the Clause 22 definition in a following
amendment, P802.3ap, which is under development."
There were no P802.3an comments on this topic, the current draft has a
high approval rate and per IEEE-SA process, it is time to published the
standard. I believe the recommended NOTE to be the best approach to our
obligations under IEEE-SA process.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:09 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Status of P802.3an conditional submittal to RevCom
P802.3an was granted conditional approval for submission to RevCom at
the closing March EC meeting. Per LMSC P&P clause 20, I offer the
following report on the conditions.
a. The P802.3an/D4.0 recirculation ballot has closed with the following
Ballot Open Date: 04/24/2006
Ballot Close Date: 05/09/2006
This ballot has met the 75% returned ballot requirement.
200 eligible people in this ballot group.
163 affirmative votes
6 negative votes with comments
0 negative votes without comments
16 abstention votes
185 votes received = 93 % returned
9 % abstention
The 75% affirmation requirement is being met.
163 affirmative votes
6 negative votes with comments
169 votes = 96% affirmative
Because there was one valid new comment (though not considered by the WG
Chair to be a substantive change), 802.3 rules require that they be
considered by the Task Force at the May meeting in accordance with the
schedule presented to the EC in March.
b. There were no new negative votes and approval stands at 96%.
c. No technical changes have been made, and the project leadership
recommends no changes be made in response to comments. There is though
a possibility that the TF may decide to make changes at its May 24
d. No new disapprove comments were received. All four comments
received are not binding.
e. No new negative comments ruled as invalid.
f. See attached file for the six remaining negative comments. The
first two digits of the comment number indicate the draft and ballot
(30xxx initial WG ballot, 31xxx 1st recirculation, etc.)
There remain six unresolved negative comments that were received in
earlier ballots as shown in the attached required comments summary file.
These comments have met all requirements for recirculation. Many of the
comments that were unresolved when conditional approval was granted by
the EC have been satisfied with either a written indication, or a
subsequent affirmative ballot.
The four non-binding comments received in this P802.3an/D4.0 ballot are
judged by the WG Chair as follows (see attached file for proposed
1. In scope of the ballot, but non-substantive. Text shown in the
previous draft as strikethrough should have been removed as the
information is part of an insert instruction, not changes to existing
text. Instead of deleting the table rows with everything struck through
in the previous draft, the editor only removed the strike through on the
text. The table rows to be deleted identify "Reserved" registers, yet
those registers are defined in other rows of the table. If the
publication editor determines these changes to be substantive, a
recirculation will be required.
2. This comment is out of scope. It proposes an addition of a
bibliography reference to the draft. Something unrelated to changes
made from the previous draft.
3. This comment is out of scope as it addresses deficiencies in
myBallot, not the draft. It is also a non-binding pile-on comment.
4. This comment is out of scope as it addresses unchanged text.
Though it does point out an error where the wrong register number is
listed next to the named register, it does not affect the technical
integrity of the document. The function is not used by P802.3an, but
will be used by P802.3ap and can be corrected (if determined substantive
by the publication editor) in P802.3ap. (The comment has also been
submitted against P802.3ap which in appropriate cases like this is using
P802.3an base text for marking changes.
The 802.3 WG Chair determines the Clause 20 conditions for leaving the
project on the RevCom agenda have been met to date. It is expected that
some editorial changes will be recommended for consideration by the
publication editor from the current comments. If, contrary to
expectation, any substantive changes are made to the draft in the May 24
P802.3an TF meeting, the project will be pulled from the June RevCom
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.