| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I have concerns about a survey because there are strict guidelines around surveys. Here is text from the antitrust slides:
Customer Surveys and Statistical Programs. Individual participants may make
presentations about broad market potential or market requirements for informational
purposes. No IEEE-SA standards group may engage in, direct, or encourage its members
to engage in surveys of customers or gathering of statistical data about market
requirements, markets, or customers without appropriate review by IEEE-SA legal counsel
(which is arranged through the IEEE-SA Staff Liaison for your working group or technical
committee).
So it is possible to conduct a survey but it would need vetted before doing it. I can assist you guys with the contact for vetting the survey.
Chad Jones
MGR, HW ENG, Cisco Systems
Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force
From: Fred Schindler <grog06@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM To: Chad Jones <cmjones@xxxxxxxxx>, 4PPOE Reflector <STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "ieee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ieee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] Channel P2P RUNB - Ad-hoc list of attendees - UPDATE Hi Chad, I misspoke. Yair is doing a straw poll with three choices. I felt a choice was missing and started this email chain. In my email, I used the word survey as equivalent to straw poll although I now realize they are not equivalent.
Thanks, Fred From: Chad Jones (cmjones) [mailto:cmjones@xxxxxxxxx]
What is this: “I do not think this is a choice in the P2P ad hoc survey but it should be”? Is there
a plan to do some sort of survey? Can you provide details? Chad Jones MGR, HW ENG, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3bt 4PPoE Task Force From: <Darshan>, Yair Darshan <YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Fred, Thanks for your inputs. So you prefer? a)
Single worst case number at room temperature? b)
Single worst case number at TBD low temperature were this low temperature represents wide market applications? (and no further text/inputs/requirements/guidelines for lower than that minimum temperature
point?) c)
Else? I understand from your response that you prefer option (b)? Yair From: Fred Schindler [mailto:grog06@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Pair-to-Pair Ad Hoc, I think adding temperature details to the IEEE .3BT specification will result in problems. Stating values at temperature is not standard for IEEE specifications.
Not all vendors will operate in the same temperature range. Requirements should be provided for interoperable operation. Some of this may be arrived at by considering temperature for the broader market. Vendors
with wider operational needs will need to use cable made for the application and tested with .3BT requirements. Guidance for cable parameters should reference cable standards. The .3BT standard should provide guidance on how to use cable standard values for
the .3BT standard. ð
I do not want parameters for specific temperatures in the requirements of the .3BT specification.
I do not think this is a choice in the P2P ad hoc survey but it should be. That is, I do not want this information in the appendix either as this will require .3BT to wait for cable standards to provide the values. Values
in the appendix are not tested. Thanks for your consideration, Fred Schindler From: Darshan, Yair [mailto:YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Hi all, Please review if I missed your name in the list of attendees on last Thursday a-hoc meeting. Thanks Yair ----
§
David Tremblay / HP ------ Darshan Yair Chief R&D Engineer Analog Mixed Signal Group Microsemi Corporation 1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220 Cell: +972-54-4893019 E-mail: <mailto:ydarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>. |