| Dear DOCTOR Zimmerman (I noticed my error after pushing send, but neglected to send a correcting message:))
The answer is: It is always easier at RevCom if the draft title exactly matches the title in the PAR. If your goal is to have a bulletproof submittal package that produces no discussion at RevCom, then match them exactly.
Therefore my resolution to the comment would be to change the draft title to match the project title on the PAR.
(Clause titles, which are more permanent because they live after integration with the base standard, are not controlled. In the long run amendment titles almost disappear completely.)
Cheers,
Geoff
Geoff - David and I discussed this prior to putting in the comment. As I understand it, The title of the amendment must be within the scope of the par (which includes Mac parameters). It was looking at the par that sensitized me to this - the par title
includes the Mac whereas the one on the draft didn't. Question is, does the amendment need to EXACTLY match the title in 2.1 of the par:
2.1 Title:
Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation
I do appreciate your advice in this, as my objective is to keep the draft correct within the rules.
George A. ZIMMERMAN, Ph.D.
(Oh, that's Dr. ZIMMERMAN :) )
President and Principal Consultant
CME Consulting, Inc.
310-920-3860
Dave-
If you wish to accept Mr. Zimmerman's comment
then you will have to put in a PAR modification package
along with the REVCOM submittal package.
The title of the project is controlled by the PAR.
One of the things that revCom checks is whether the title on the draft matches the title on the PAR.
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:13 AMPDT, Chalupsky, David <david.chalupsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Please see below the email from David Law with the results of the P802.3bz Sponsor ballot recirculation.
Two comments were received on D3.2; no new negative votes.
The comment file with proposed responses is posted here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/comments/8023bz_D3p2_ID_proposed.pdf
The Chief Editor's Report may be found here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/public/jul16/zimmerman_3bz_01_0716.pdf
We have received a liaison from TIA TR42 with the latest draft of TSB-5021.
The liaison cover letter may be found here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/public/jul16/TR42-2016-10-109_Outgoing_Liaison_to_IEEE_802.3bz_re_TSB-5021_Draft_1.1.pdf
The liaised document may be found here in the P802.3bz private area:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/private/TIA_TSB-5021_Draft_1.1.pdf
P802.3bz will be meeting Wednesday at 8am during the IEEE 802.3 plenary meeting in San Diego for comment resolution.
Thank you,
David Chalupsky
Chair, IEEE P802.3bz Task Force
-----Original Message-----
From: Law, David [mailto:dlaw@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 7:31 AM
To: STDS-802-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-3] IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T initial Sponsor ballot results
Dear Colleagues,
The initial Sponsor ballot on the Amendment IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T closed successfully on 21st July 2016. The ballot exceeded the required 75% for consensus to approve the draft. The July 2016 IEEE P802.3bz Task Force plenary
week meeting <http://www.ieee802.org/3/interims/index.html> will consider the 2 comments submitted and determine changes to the draft as appropriate. The availability of the comment database will be
announced on the IEEE P802.3bz Task Force reflector.
The ballot statistics are:
124 Voters
107 Approve
0 Disapprove
4 Abstain
111 Ballots returned
89.52% Response Rate (>= 75% required)
3.60% Abstain Rate (< 30% required)
100.00% Approval Rate (>= 75% required)
Thank you to all that participated in this ballot.
David Law
Chair, IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group
David Chalupsky
Chair, IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Task Force
|