| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear colleagues, During the process of preparing D3.1 for recirculation, our esteemed Chief Editor located two incorrectly implemented comments: one from D2.1 review and one from D2.0 review, that were not caught during the D3.0 ballot. They are discussed in more detail below: =============== The comment from D2.1 review is comment number #11 from Pete Anslow (see http://www.ieee802.org/3/bk/comments/8023bk_D21_resolved.pdf for more details), which requested changes in footnote a) under Table 60-3 and Table 60-6. The footnote under Table 60-3 in D3.0 was modified only partially, replacing the first instance of the word "device" with the word "transmitter. However, the last instance of this word was not replaced, contrary to the approved response to the comment. The footnote under Table 60-6 in D3.0 was modified incorrectly, changing the word "nominal" to "transmitter", resulting in a rather unreadable statement. Furthermore, the last instance of the word "device" was not replaced with the word "transmitter", contrary to the approved response to the comment. =============== The comment from D2.0 review is comment number #994 from David Law (see http://www.ieee802.org/3/bk/comments/8023bk_D20_resolved.pdf for more details), which requested a series of changes to PICS. In summary, for item PX30D3, the Status field had incorrect conditional reference to PX40D:M, whereas it should have had PX30D:M, which is what would have been consistent with the approved comment resolution. =============== Both of these issues have been fixed in D3.1 and marked with appropriate editorial notes in the text to draw attention of the balloters to this fact. All other comments from ballots on D2.0, D2.1, and D3.0 were also confirmed to have been implemented correctly. Kindest regards Marek Hajduczenia Chair, IEEE P802.3bk Extended Ethernet Passive Optical Networks Task Force |