| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Sorry, had to walk down the same path
J. So George, you are thinking that instead of your proposed: "Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation,
Types 2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T" we go to: "Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation" This matches the PAR and Mr Thompson’s sage advice. Regards Peter _______________________________________________
Peter Jones Cisco Systems
Principal Engineer 560 McCarthy Blvd. Campus Switching S/W Milpitas, CA, 95035 USA
Wrk: +1 408 525 6952 Mob: +1 408 315 8024
Email: petejone at cisco.com
Twitter: @petergjones LinkedIn: /in/petergjones _______________________________________________ From: George Zimmerman [mailto:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Now we've echoed the discussion that a smaller number of us went through some weeks ago. I too think that the 'best descriptive' title includes both Mac and the base-t phys; however, I think the overall 'best' title is the one that keeps
us out of revcom title. I will point out that usually the types aren't listed in the first standard of a new speed of Ethernet, and this is the first time I can think of that a base-t has been the first PHY type of a new speed. Hence whole base-t standards
usually have type in the name there is some precedence for leaving it out, given that this is a new speed. We should have a good discussion In the task force. President and Principal Consultant CME Consulting, Inc. 310-920-3860
Taking a quick look at this. The Par (http://www.ieee802.org/3/bz/P802.3bz.pdf) says for “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 Draft 3.2 () says Draft Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Physical Layer and Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation, Types 2.5GBASE-T and
5GBASE-T And George’s comment says
Change title from: "Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Physical Layer and Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation, Types 2.5GBASE-T
and 5GBASE-T" to: "Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 2.5 Gb/s and 5 Gb/s Operation,
Types 2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T" It seems to me that George’s proposed change gets closer to the original PAR (the addition of “Media Access Control Parameters,”), but also keeps the “, Types 2.5GBASE-T
and 5GBASE-T” which was not in the original PAR text. Not including “2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T” in the title of the amendment does not seem like the right thing. Regards Peter _______________________________________________
Peter Jones Cisco Systems
Principal Engineer 560 McCarthy Blvd. Campus Switching S/W Milpitas, CA, 95035 USA
Wrk: +1 408 525 6952 Mob: +1 408 315 8024
Email: petejone at
cisco.com Twitter: @petergjones LinkedIn: /in/petergjones _______________________________________________ From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx]
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
|