Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Sponsor ballot recirculation results, website updates, and meeting time

["Law, David" <dlaw@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Geoff,

Subclause 4.2.3.2 'Review of draft standards' of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual <https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sb_om.pdf> addresses this issue including the text 'Title of Document. The title on the draft document and submittal form shall be within the scope as stated on the most recently approved PAR, or action(s) shall be taken to ensure this.'. The IEEE-SA 2014 Style manual has similar text that reads 'Per 4.2.3.2 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, the title on the draft document shall be within the scope as stated on the most recently approved PAR.'. Finally, item 2. Of the RevCom check list <https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/approve/subchklst.pdf> reads 'Is the Title of the submitted draft within the Scope of the PAR?'.

Based on the above I don't believe your suggested change to the draft title would require a PAR change.

Best regards,
  David

-----

From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 24 July 2016 12:06
To: Peter Jones (petejone) <petejone@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Geoff Thompson <thompson@xxxxxxxx>; George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Law, David <dlaw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Sponsor ballot recirculation results, website updates, and meeting time

Folks-

I am going to revise my "sage advice"
Given that the project was "within the scope" of the PAR...
I.e. it did 2.5 and 5 GBASE-T but it did not do any other media such as backplane, fiber or twinax.

...it could pass through RevCom painlessly if changed the draft title to match the PAR title.
But, upon further reflection, that would seem like a bad idea since there is no mention of the media at all in the title and the project is in fact a BASE-T project not and across the board all media project.

Therefore my current reccomendation is that we do the PAR modification to change the PAR title and go with:

	"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"

In this way directory, catalog entries and the next revision front matter project history will be fully descriptive.

Changing the PAR is a little more work but I do think everything should still slide through without any problems;
however, I would defer to Mr Law's opinion on this.

Best regards,

	Geoff Thompson


On Jul 23, 2016, at 5:01 PMPDT, Peter Jones (petejone) <petejone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sorry, had to walk down the same path ☺.
 
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] ;
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 4:48 PM
To: Peter Jones (petejone) <petejone@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Geoff Thompson <thompson@xxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Law (dlaw@xxxxxxx) <dlaw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Sponsor ballot recirculation results, website updates, and meeting time
 
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.

George A. ZIMMERMAN, Ph.D. 
President and Principal Consultant
CME Consulting, Inc.
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
 

On Jul 23, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Peter Jones (petejone) <petejone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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] ;
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 7:56 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGBASET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGBASET] IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Sponsor ballot recirculation results, website updates, and meeting time
 
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
 
On Jul 23, 2016, at 7:23 AMPDT, George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
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.
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
 

On Jul 23, 2016, at 6:29 AM, Geoff Thompson <thompson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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