|
Tom,
I agree with your
classifications. Suggest you put a brief (15 minutes maximum)
presentation together on the comments you want the group to define an action
plan for or that you need particular feedback on to be ready for WG
ballot.
I'm not exactly sure
how the long the session will be yet. I have said an hour but suspect we
need more time.
Regards,
David
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
|