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

Re: [RPRWG] P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = APPROVE WITH COMMENT / P802. 17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = DISAPPROVE



All, here are a couple of comments on the voting process prompted by Necdet's email attached.
 
Any NO vote submitted with any ballot on a document MUST be accompanied by the specific changes required to change that NO vote to a YES.  Any NO vote that is not accompanied by such text is considered invalid and can be thrown out.
 
Certainly John Hawkin's separate reply that the NO vote could state that any TBDs must be removed or supplied before changing the vote is one way to handle this situation.  However, there are obligations on the voter.  If a term is listed as TBD, and you believe the term is critical and must be defined, before you will change your vote to a YES, then you are obligated to supply a satisfactory definition of the term for your NO vote on that term to be considered valid.
 
Best regards,
 
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle     Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773       Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx          Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = APPROVE WITH COMMENT / P802. 17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = DISAPPROVE

John,

I approve without comment all clauses except the ones listed. Maybe I should have checked DO NOT APPROVE as I do not approve the whole thing. Are we voting clause by clause or the whole thing? There are a lots of TBDs, if we are voting the whole thing, I do not think anyone can vote APPROVE WITHOUT COMMENT at this time as doing so would be approving a future definition.

Thanks.

Necdet

John Hawkins wrote:

 Necdet,  I don't understand... is this a vote to approve or not? The subject line says approve with comment, and the ballot itself says approve without comment and do not approve.Can you clarify,Thanks,john
-----Original Message-----
From: Necdet Uzun [mailto:nuzun@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:29 PM
To: 802.17; Hawkins, John [WWP1:2268:EXCH]; bob.sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = APPROVE WITH COMMENT / P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = DISAPPROVE
 
TA Document IEEE802.17-11Jul2001/:7, July 11, 2000
Working Group Ballot August, 2001
(Terms and Definitions for Resilient Packet Ring)

Your Name:______Necdet Uzun_____________________
_x__    APPROVE WITHOUT COMMENT  ( rest of the subclauses which are not mentioned below)
___    APPROVE WITH COMMENTS
_x__    DO NOT APPROVE (see below)
___    ABSTAIN,   List Reason i.e. Lack of Expertise, Lack of Time:
____________________________
------ END OF BALLOT SECTION -------
IF YOU ARE VOTING "APPROVE WITHOUT COMMENT" or ABSTAINING, YOUR WORK
IS DONE AT THIS POINT. COMMENT INFORMATION: COMMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE INSTANCE OF AN "APPROVE WITH COMMENT"
VOTE AND REQUIRED IN THE INSTANCE OF A "DO NOT APPROVE" VOTE.
"DO NOT APPROVE" VOTES MUST BE BACKED UP BY COMMENTS CLASSIFIED AS
"TECHNICAL REQUIRED" AND THESE MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT REMEDY AS
TO CHANGE THE VOTE TO AN "APPROVE" IF ADOPTED.  ALL COMMENTS SHOULD
INCLUDE CHANGES REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE THE STATED CONCERN. PLEASE USE THE FORM BELOW FOR ALL COMMENTS. MULTIPLE COMMENTS CAN BE
SUBMITTED IN ONE ASCII TEXT FILE OR E-MAIL. SIMPLY ADD YOUR PERSONAL DATA
AND THEN COPY THE LINES FOLLOWING        "------ COMMENT SECTION -------"
AND REPEAT AS OFTEN AS REQUIRED WITHIN THE FILE OR EMAIL. PLEASE USE THE
FORMAT BELOW, MAKING SURE THAT THE COMMENTS ARE IN ASCII FORM AND THAT
EACH COMMENT INCLUDES:
CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Acceptable comment types:
E  = Editorial
T  = Technical
TR = Technical Required

------ COMMENT SECTION -------
Comments on P802.17/TD1.0 CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 4
Page: 1
Line: 14
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: backpressure can be sent by any means, it does not have to be sent by using a frame.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy: Change "control frame" to "control signal"
RemedyEnd:
 
 

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 20
Page: 2
Line: 43
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: committed burst size needs to be measured in a shorter time duration than CIR.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy:Change "Tc" to "Tb", where Tb is the interval of measuring the burst size. Note that Tb << Tc.
RemedyEnd:
 

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 31
Page: 3
Line: 71
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: Stripped means that frame is removed from the ring, hence you can not copy and strip.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy: Change "stripped" to "received".
RemedyEnd:

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 39
Page: 3
Line: 89
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: Definition is confusing.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy: Rewrite. As simple as " Reception of a frame more than once by the destination." would be good enough.
RemedyEnd:

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 41
Page: 4
Line: 95
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: out-of-sequence frames are only relevant if they are from the same priority.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy:Modify the start of the sentence as "A same priority frame (Ft) ..."
RemedyEnd:
Comment #: 2
Comment: "after frame Ft+1, ..." is not sufficient enough for ordered delivery.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy: Modify the whole thing as "A same priority frame (Ft) arriving at a destination station after Ft+1 or before Ft-1 in a sequence of frames F0, F1, F2, ...., Fn sent from a source station.
RemedyEnd:

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 56
Page: 5
Line: 123
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: "receiving station" may not be congested but an intermediate station may be.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy: Replace "receiving station" in line 125 with "congested station"
RemedyEnd:

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: 64
Page: 5
Line: 139
CommentType (E, T, TR):  TR, DO NOT APPROVE
Comment #: 1
Comment: There is no need to define the term "global spatial reuse". The term "spatial reuse" is enough.
CommentEnd:
SuggestedRemedy: delete this subclause.
RemedyEnd:

CommenterName: Necdet Uzun
CommenterEmail: nuzun@xxxxxxxxx
CommenterPhone: 408-853-0461
CommenterCellPhone:
CommenterCompany: Cisco Systems
Clause: 1
Subclause: all others
Page:
Line:
CommentType (E, T, TR):  APPROVE
Comment #:
Comment:
CommentEnd:
RemedyEnd: