[8023-10GEPON] revised proposed responses

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

Dear Colleagues,

Our editors have revised several of previously-posted proposed responses. The updated file is posted at http://www.ieee802.org/3/av/public/2008_01/3av_0801_comments_d1_0_proposed.pdf.

Below is the list of changes:

1) Comment 77:

Issue: Comments 345, 77, and 394 all have PROPOSED ACCEPT response, which means that the suggested remedy will be used exactly as is. However, suggested remedies are different: one comment suggests using 1000 Mb/s, others suggest Gb/s. Thus, it is not possible to accept all three of them - one or more comments should be PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE.

Action: #77 - Response PROPOSED ACCEPT is changed to PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE

2) Comments 397, 289, 312, 326, 391, 334, 321, 324, 285.

Issue: All these comments propose ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE, but no alternative remedy was suggested by the editor. If the editor does not offer a new remedy different from the suggested remedy, then he must either reject or accept the comment. It is perfectly OK to reject a comment if no specific remedy is offered by the author. During meeting discussion, the final response may change from what the editor proposed initially.

Action:

#397, 326, 391, 334, 321, 324, 285 - Response PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE is changed to PROPOSED ACCEPT

#289, 312 - Response PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE is changed to PROPOSED REJECT

3) Comments 116 and 349.

Issue: One response says to change "presence of the optional Discovery Information field" to "optional presence of the Discovery Information field". Another comment later suggests using "presence of the optional Discovery Information field" again.

Action: response to comment 349 references back to response to comment 116.

4) Comments 270, 300, 330

Issue: Editor rejects the suggested remedy, but the response is written PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE

Action: Response PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE is changed to PROPOSED REJECT

5) Comments 117 and 271.

Issue: One response says to use "downstream" and "upstream", another says to add DS and US to the list of acronyms.

Action: Response to #271 references back to #117

6) Comment 275, 294, 400, 398

Issue: Editor proposes a new (different) remedy, but the response is written PROPOSED ACCEPT (or PROPOSED REJECT)

Action: Response PROPOSED ACCEPT (or PROPOSED REJECT) is changed to PROPOSED ACCEPT IN PRICIPLE

7) Comments 113, 308, and 76

Action: Responses to these comments should point back to comment #4, which was discussed and approved by the TF in November.