[802.3_NGBASET] guidance on comments for bq

[George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I’d like to offer some guidance to those making comments on 802.3bq draft 1.2, to make our meeting go smoother and allow your editing team to do a better job.  We only have 1.5 days and will have to turn the draft overnight on Wednesday.

With that in mind, it would be very helpful if, towards the front of your comment, you could label the type of comment into a category.  I’ve been using these myself, so I’ve developed a reasonable list of useful ones:

 

[TYPO] – an obvious typographical error in the draft, for example, ‘teh’ for ‘the’

[XREF] – an error with a cross reference (e.g., clause 98 became clause 113, there are some places where it still says 98)

[NOTE] – an issue with (deletion or requested addition of) an editor’s note

[STYLE] – a name change to a register (not a typo), or something to make the wording consistent with other 802.3 standards

[TECH] – an issue with a technical requirement (modifying text in a ‘shall’ statement, for example)

[TECH-INF] – an issue with informative technical text (description, not a ‘shall’)

[FORMAT] – something wrong with the formatting

[TBD] – removing a TBD (not filling in a new number, that would be TECH)

 

Additionally, you should be aware that the page numbering on the printed pages is a bit funky.  At Annex 28A, it jumps into the 700’s.  If possible, PLEASE use the printed page numbers on the bottom of the page, not the page of the PDF file.  We know about this issue and are planning to fix it, but already have a number of comments indexed to the printed numbers.

 

George Zimmerman

Principal, CME Consulting

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications Technology

george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

310-920-3860

 

(PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS.  THE OTHER WILL STILL WORK, BUT PLEASE USE THIS FOR CME BUSINESS)