David - under this plan, do you have guidelines on how to structure
presentations for the special session?
Using my PROPOSED REJECT comments for examples, I see 3 different levels of
rejection.
- Suggested remedy not complete - I would like to present the rationale for
this comment to know whether it has the general support of the group or not.
Then if the group wants to delay any specific action, at least I'll know that
to expect next time around or whether the topic needs more work in the
meantime. I expect this type of comment falls into the special
session.
- Substantial change requiring significant justification and review - given
your email, I may be willing to accept this and withdraw these this time.
However, I would like a forum to elevate attention to these matters and
develop a plan to working through them by next ballot/meeting, and can
structure a presentation accordingly. I expect this type of comment falls
into the special session.
- Opinion of initial reviewer is different than mine. I expect this
type of comment falls into the normal session.
Do you agree? If so, I will prepare presentations accordingly. What time
constraints to you expect during the special session?
Thanks,
Tom Lindsay ClariPhy Communications tom.lindsay@clariphy.comphone:
(425) 608-0209 or (949) 480-9210 cell: (206) 790-3240 fax: (425)
608-0232
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:12
PM
Subject: Re: [10GMMF] TP3 and RE: Dear
comment contributors
Robert,
I'm answering this email as I instructed Nick to
be very brutal and reject all incomplete comments.
Your comment is
important but it is incomplete. You yourself are requesting a very detailed
study and discussion of the topic. There are many other conflicting
comments on the same subject. I don't believe that the group can develop
better specifications with true concensus for the stressors than the ones
already in the document for or during the March meeting. Therefore, the
group needs to develop a plan to agree more accurate specifications for the
stressors for the WG Ballot. Given the number of comments (all of them
rejected) in this area I expect a lot of energy will be put into resolving
this particulr specification by May.
As Nick said, to respect the work
of the people who submitted comments, I am planning to have a special session
on the rejected comments. The goal of the session are to ensure the
group pays attention to them and develops plans to resolve them between March
and May. It must be remembered that the ad hocs were very, very active. I
think people needed to catch their breath after getting the draft complete in
January. I would be very, very surprised if you needed a motion at the meeting
to have others agree to make contributions in this area between March and
May.
To go to WG ballot we need a complete draft not an absolutely
perfect or correct draft. The draft is complete - some specifications
and tests need fine tuning. Some more simulations need to be done.
This is quite normal at this stage of the process.
In my opinion, D1.1
is actually ready for Working Group Ballot. I assume the group agrees
since it voted unanimously to forwarded it for preview to IEEE 802.3.
IEEE 802.3 expects to see every change to the document as part of my report to
the closing Plenary. This means that Nick and I must be able to make all
changes on Wednesday evening. The changes had better be simple,
mechanical in nature and limited in number. To enable the desire of the
group I have on many occasions informed it that in the March draft review
cycle it could expect me (and under my instruction) Nick to reject all
comments that were incomplete or vague. I have also informed the group
that if it really wants to go to Working Group Ballot out of the March meeting
then it must be very disciplined and make only a few, very precise changes to
the draft. For IEEE 802.3 to allow us to go to WG ballot rough
rules-of-thumb would be as follows:
1) D1.2 should have many pages of
the draft per D1.1.
2) Pages with edits should have only a few lines or
table entries changed.
3) We should give priority to feedback from the IEEE
802.3 pre-viewers not in our group, after all they are our masters.
4) We
should do nothing that might reduce the consensus on D1.1. within LRM.
5)
Complex changes should be kept for WG Ballot.
Additionally, time
management will be a particular problem at the March meeting. I will
advise the group that it must be pragmatic and only make changes that can be
agreed upon quickly. In comment review if we get bogged down I
will ask the commenter to withdraw the comment for resubmission at Working
Group Ballot. Editorial comments will be left until the end and will be
dropped if we run out of time. In my experience of IEEE 802.3 these are
standard procedures for the review cycle leading up to WG ballot.
None
of the above should imply that I or Nick think that any comments are poor,
undesired or should be ignored. All feedback on the draft and related
models is very welcome. My advice to the group is become familiar with
the all the comments marked "Rejected by Editor" and to take them
seriously. However, some may involve more effort than a simple
discussion at the meeting. They may require the group to accept that
there is still major work to do to get some of the details absolutely
right. Rather than waste precious time attempting to resolve that class
of comment at the meeting we should devote the time to understanding them and
planning the work to resolve them for WG Ballot. As you say this may
involve reinvigorating the ad hocs.
For this process to work the LRM
group has to have integrity, trust and discipline. It must be sincere
and united in its stated desire to go to WG Ballot out of the March
meeting. I am assuming the group has integrity and will act in
accordance with the instructions it gave me in terms of its timeline and vote
to forward D1.1 to IEEE 802.3 for
preview.
Regards,
David
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-10gmmf@ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Lingle, Jr, Robert
(Robert)
Sent: 07 March 2005 20:19
To:
STDS-802-3-10GMMF@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
[10GMMF] TP3 and RE: Dear comment contributors
Nick,
I
understand your need to move things along at the Atlanta meeting.
I
understand your objection to comments without an exact change
specified.
However there is a dilemma here that must be solved.
A
problem with the TP3 stressed sensitivity test was raised on the
reflector
a few weeks ago (see
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/aq/public/upload/ImplicationsofFiniteE
qualizerPenaltiesforTP3.pdf>).
John
Ewen made a similar comment, which was also marked "PROPOSED REJECT." A
key
figure in committee leadership has told me by personal email that he
agrees
there is a finite equalizer issue that should be addressed,
especially w/r
to heavy pre-cursor ISI.
A new set of specific IPR's that remove this
deficiency are best generated
collaboratively by the TP3 group, using a
common seive code that all agree
with.
However TP3 has not met since
Vancouver. Specific experts on the stressed
sensitivity test have expressed
agreement/disagreement with the the
suggested deficiency neither on the
reflector nor privately. There sieve
code is not a public tool, such as TP2
provided for TWDP.
There are many ways to address this, including posting a
public sieve tool
and/or actively addressing the issue collaboratively.
Perhaps a motion
directing TP3 to do so is better than a comment. Better
still would be
voluntary active discussion of the
topic.
Robert
Robert Lingle, Jr
Fiber Design and Development
OFS
R&D, Atlanta, GA
-----Original Message-----
From:
Nick Weiner
[mailto:nw.lrm.mail@phyworks-ic.com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:41
AM
To: AbbottJS@Corning.com; pwfitzgerald@circadiant.com;
'Joe Gwinn';
'Petar Pepeljugoski'; 'Swanson, Steven E'; John.Ewen@jdsu.com; 'Sudeep
Bhoja';
'Mike Dudek'; piers_dawe@agilent.com; 'George, John
(John)';
'Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert)'; pavel.zivny@exgate.tek.com;
david_cunningham@agilent.com;
'Tom Lindsay'
Subject: Dear
comment contributors
Dear
IEEE 802.3aq Draft 1.1 comment
contributors,
I thought I'd
write you a short note before we upload the comment
summary
...
As I indicated in my email
to the reflector, we are being very
strict this time about allowing only
comments with precise suggested
remedies - i.e. precisely stated changes to
the document. This note is just
to give you some advance warning that I am
proposing rejection of all
comments that do not include precise remedies.
They are mark "PROPOSED
REJECT. Suggested remedy not
complete."
To complete the
formal process I will make a motion, to the Task
Force, that we reject all
of these comments. I will not be inviting
"friendly amendments", in this
case, to remove comments from the
motion.
David and I realize that
they all represent strongly held opinions,
and David will be allocating an
hour of time for presentation of these
rejected
comments.
Thanks you all for
your contributions, and I look forward to seeing
you all in
Atlanta,
Nick.
Robert
Lingle, Jr
Fiber Design and Development
OFS R&D, Atlanta,
GA
|