Re: [RPRWG] P802.17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = APPROVE WITH COMMENT / P802. 17 TD1.0 RESPONSE = DISAPPROVE
I think that the voting rules should include the stipulation that
anything voted on should at least appear to be a completed work.
I think it is unfair to put out something that has a significant
percentage uncomplete and then expect anyone who has a problem
with the incomplete document to finish the work if they want
to vote no. I really hope we do not take this approace with
the standard. In this case you are putting too much burden on
the individual voter.
--
******************************************************************
Timothy R. Plunkett, code B35
Building 1500A Room 110
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren Division
17320 Dahlgren Rd.
Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100
(540) 653 - 1090 (phone at Dahlgren)
(540) 653 - 8673 (fax at Dahlgren)
RDLove wrote:
>
> 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 -----
> From: Necdet Uzun
> To: John Hawkins
> Cc: 802.17 ; bob.sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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:
> >