RE: [RPRWG] May contribution page up and running

[Tom Alexander <Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: May contribution page up and running

John and Leon,

 

John is right in that the comment database and process is used only for approved draft text,

not for proposals, output of ad-hocs, opinions, etc. There is absolutely no problem with the

ad-hocs using their own copies of the comment database to track and manage their work;

however, these copies (and the comments in them) will not be dealt with by the editorial

team during P802.17 meetings.

 

It is also true that the reflector is the preferred method of expressing opinions on, or pointing

out issues with, such unapproved items. Please make more use of it!

 

Best regards,

 

- Tom A.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hawkins [mailto:jhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:39 AM
To: 'Leon Bruckman'; 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] May contribution page up and running

Good questions Leon.

 

I will defer the "official" answer to Tom/Mike/Bob and the other process experts, but based on our previous practice I would think that voting the text into a baseline draft then permits commenting, proposing resolutions, etc... just as we are doing with the other clauses in v0.2.

 

These two clauses are a bit behind in terms of general review and comment because they weren't voted into the v0.1 baseline in St Louis. While unfortunate, that is a pessimist's view.

 

The optimist would say they have benefited from several week's of ad hoc refinements that would render them more acceptable to the group, and less likely to attract as many comments....

 

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? :-)

 

So there is no way to enter comments against these clauses using the formal commentary tool right now. However, it is ALWAYS appropriate to express opinions on proposals via the reflector. If your view is not reflected in the proposed text, I'd say the reflector is as good a medium as any to discuss such issues. Alternatively you could contact members of the ad hoc, and at least gain an understanding of what was considered by the group.

 

john

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Bruckman [mailto:leonb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:33 AM
To: Hawkins, John [WWP1:2268:EXCH]; 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] May contribution page up and running

John,

Regarding the new contributions from the Rate and the Topology Ad Hocs: What is the comment and comment resolution process ?

Is there a way to send formal comments before the May meeting, or comments will be presented and resolved during the meeting only ?

 

Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hawkins [mailto:jhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:55 AM
To: 'stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: [RPRWG] May contribution page up and running

I have just installed the May meeting proceedings page on the 802.17 website. It can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/17/documents/presentations/may2002

Included at this time are contributions from the Rate Ad Hoc (courtesy of Necdet Uzun) and the Topology Ad Hoc (courtesy of John Lemon). These are proposed text (and a presentation covering the same) that these Ad Hocs wish  the group to consider for adoption into the official draft. Please take some time to review and comment on these at the upcoming meeting.

If you have scheduled presentations to be used next week, please consider emailing them as early as possible (to Mike T) so we can upload them to the site in a timely fashion.

If there are problems with this page or any other portion of the site, please don't hesitate to email/call me.

See you in Ottawa!

Regards,

john
Optical Ethernet Marketing
( Tel 770 708 7375   (ESN 268)
2 Fax 253-981-8720 * Email  jhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, Mail    Nortel Networks, Mail drop 46D/02/F60
                 5405 Windward Parkway, Alpharetta GA 30004, USA