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

[802.3_SPMD] A few of notes on the draft review for 802.3da 0.3

Just a couple of notes to ease your review.

  • For those new to the process, please note that text in the draft for clause 148 is not the complete clause 148.  The amendment contains the edits (insertions, deletions, replaced figures, and (marked up) changes) to the existing clause 148.  If you want to look at the base text, you’ll need to get 802.3cg from the “Get 802” program.
  • Things that I knew needed updating are marked in yellow highlight.  Usually these are cross references to sections that we haven’t adopted text for yet.
  • There is one fairly confusing error in the draft that has been found.  The figures marked 148-5 and 148-6 should be 148-7 and 148-8.  This is compounded by a few other things (the editing instruction says “Insert 148.4.7 following (and Figure 148-7) as follows:” , leaving out 148-8 (and then the figures are misnumbered), the “shall” requiring conformance to the figures is missing, and the PICS are correct, but in yellow highlight (mistakenly).  This is being commented on, so no need to do it twice.
  • Clause 167 is what was clause 200 in the previous draft.  It is based on clause 147, with the edits as per , which we adopted back in the fall.  I am working to see if there is a useful machine-readable difference file, but so far efforts have not provided useful results (too much clutter).  Since I did not retype the base text from clause 147, and just deleted and changed from the presentation, we have a good chance this is correct.  However, as we comment the two clauses are expected to diverge.  You should treat clause 167 as its own thing.


And one request:

If you wish to add things that are NOT currently a subject of the draft, I would appreciate if you bring those separately as a presentation and proposal to the task force.  This way we can keep the adopted features and changes that relate to new matter (corrections or other) separate from the editorial process.  It is tempting to see everything as related and just propose text through a comment (and I often am tempted myself), but I think it is important at this stage to make new decisions clear.  Fixes of things that are already in the text so that they work as intended are fine as comments (but may be best explained with a presentation too).  Embedding new changes into the comment process is often necessary during a formal ballot cycle, but at these early stages, it really can confuse things – so please, as editor, it is my preference that you request a separate presentation (and motion) rather than supplying comments to implement new features or new changes during task force review. 



George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications




To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: