Re: [802.3_1TPCE] BroadR-Reach Version 3.2

[Geoff Thompson <thompson@xxxxxxxx>]

Mehmet-

If you want to make sure that you avoid procedural problems, I would strongly recommend getting the DIFF posted on the same timetable that is traditional in 802.3 for providing previews on drafts before they are voted for action in 802.3.  That would be:

2.8.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirments

Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in addition have met the following requirements:

1. a)  It must be complete with no open technical issues.

2. b)  It must be made available for pre-view by the membership by the Monday prior to the plenary week. 

That would be a pretty bulletproof argument on timing.

However, I am still of the opinion that, even though you want to get these changes in for technical consideration, that you really do not want to change the objective at this point.

But whether or not to do that is a topic for discussion at the SG meeting.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Best regards,

Geoff

On Jul 4, 2014, at 12:41 PMPDT, Mehmet Tazebay <mtazebay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Geoff,

Thanks for the feedback. This is quite useful for us and I will provide the DIFF presentation ahead of San Diego meeting. Hopefully, that will provide a effective basis for further reviews and discussions. 

Thanks and best regards,

Mehmet

On Jul 4, 2014, at 5:26 AM, "Geoff Thompson" <thompson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thomas-

I feel this is not quite adequate.

While the file is retrievable from the URL that you provided,

there is no appearance of the file that is visible to anyone who does not have your e-mail in hand.

That is, the file does not appear on the directory page of the public directory in which it was stored.

http://www.ieee802.org/3/1TPCESG/public/

Nor does it appear under any obvious link on the Study Group page

http://www.ieee802.org/3/1TPCESG/index.html

I see no good reason why the participants should have to wait until a meeting presentation before we are provided with a DIFF document.

We need this information now so that the participants can each make an informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to embrace V3.2 at this meeting

The entry in the "Revisions History" (page ix) of version 3.2 is inadequate for that purpose and there seems to be nothing else provided at this time.

We need a DIFF document of the same manner that is provided between draft versions in 802.3 balloting.

It is a well established custom in 802.3 that a DIFF version of each draft is supplied whenever a new draft is distributed to a Task force.

Moreover, the submitters continue to thwart our participants ability to generate a DIFF document on their own.

The most recent document provided is locked (as are the 2 earlier versions) with respect to any of the following actions:

Page extraction

Commenting

Content copying (as in generating a drop-out text file to use for comparison)

Also, it would be helpful for the group's reference purposes if the provided drafts had line numbers.

Based on these problems, I am reluctant to consider this an appropriate document for the July meeting.

Best regards,

Geoff Thompson

On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:28 PMPDT, Hogenmueller Thomas (AE-BE/EKE) <Thomas.Hogenmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Team,

 

As announced in my last mail we received now the version 3.2 of the BroadR-Reach specification.

At the plenary meeting we will also see a presentation that will explain the minor differences between 3.0 and 3.2.

The presentation is available here: http://www.ieee802.org/3/1TPCESG/public/BroadR_Reach_Automotive_Spec_V3.2.pdf

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

 

Thomas Hogenmueller