Mehmet/Thomas-
I now have access to the presentation material and the 2 versions.
I will attempt my own DIFF probably the day after tomorrow as one has not been provided yet.
I did look at the presentation on the differences.
From just a brief look I do not see anything that would make our current objective
be not true for implementations conforming to v3.2
That is, I assume that:
Version 3.2 will (straight quote of the objective)
• Provide electrical interoperability with existing single balanced twisted pair 100 Mb/s client interface (BroadR_Reach_Automotive_Spec_V3.0.pdf PHY).
The only reason to change the objective is if:
You DO NOT want interoperability with the existing PHYs that were built to 3.0
-OR-
You don't think you CAN ACHIEVE interoperability with the existing PHYs that were built to 3.0.
The thought that you may need what is in V3.2 to achieve such interoperability is NOT a good reason to change to objectives.
That only means that we should take V3.2 as the initial proposal for our specification.
It doesn't mean we should change the compatibility target
I look forward to seeing you next week.
Best regards,
Geoff
On Jul 7, 2014, at 1:32 AMPDT, Mehmet Tazebay <mtazebay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Geoff,
Thanks for this information. Your points are well understood. I will provide the DIFF file shortly.
Thanks and best regards,
Mehmet
On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:58 AM, "Geoff Thompson" <thompson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
• a) It must be complete with no open technical issues.
• 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
|