Re: [802.3_RTPGE] P802.3bp January Interim

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Duane,

Comments i-87, i-88, and i-99 were marked as withdrawn.

Relative comments i-140, i-148, i-83, we will take a look at the suggested changes tomorrow. For comments i-112 and i-113, per TF feedback today there is no doubt in the context what variable / timer is referenced, and I do not believe any further changes to the currently recorded responses is needed.

Regards

Marek Hajduczenia, PhD, CCNA CSCO12874393
Network Architect, Principal Engineer
Bright House Networks
Office +1-813-295-5644
Cell +1-813-465-0669

ccna_routerswitching_sm

From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 4:49 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] P802.3bp January Interim

Steve/Marek,

I would like to withdraw the following comments:

Cl 97 SC 97.1.2.1 P 61 L 21 # i-87

Cl 97 SC 97.3.4 P 85 L 32 # i-88

Cl 97 SC 97.4.2.2.1 P 112 L 33 # i-99

For Comment

Cl 97 SC 97.5.4.1 P 136 L 30 # i-140

Rather than a reject please consider changing from “This specification shall be satisfied” to “This BER specification shall be satisfied”

For Comment

Cl 97 SC 97.7.1 P 148 L 13 # i-148

Please consider this: Change to read:

"All 1000BASE-T1 PHYs shall be capable of operating as MASTER or SLAVE based on the runtime configuration. Support for Auto-Negotiation (Clause 98) is optional."

Update PICS as needed.”

I have the following comments on the proposed/”final” resolution on the comments indicated

Cl 97 SC 97.3.2.3.1 P 85 L 8 # i-83

It seems to me the introduction of the word “channel” here is not a good solution given there are comments on the use of that term. Is suggest changing “it” to “receive PCS” (which is I believe the “it” refers to here.

Cl 97 SC 97.3.4.3 P 86 L 42 # i-92

I suggest you insert “that is” between polynomial and same in two places in your proposed text.

Cl 97 SC 97.3.5.2 P 88 L 24 # i-93

I don’t particularly like the _expression_ “PAM3 zeros” as it does not appear anywhere but if this is well understood by the group I won’t object.

Cl 97 SC 97.4.2.6.1 P 121 L 8 # i-112

As long as “this variable” is clear in the PICS then I’m fine with this.

Cl 97 SC 97.4.2.6.2 P 121 L 37 # i-113

As long as “the timer” is clear in the PICS then I’m fine with this.

I am working on

Cl 97 SC 97.10.5 P 153 L 18 # i-72

And hope to have you something before the end of the day (AOE).

Best Regards,

Duane

FutureWei Technologies Inc.

duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx

Director, Access R&D

919 418 4741

Raleigh, NC

From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 11:45 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] P802.3bp January Interim

Dear colleagues,

Attached please find the comment report with the status prior to recess today. Please use them as reference for further discussion on open topics.

Regards

Marek Hajduczenia, PhD, CCNA CSCO12874393
Network Architect, Principal Engineer
Bright House Networks
Office +1-813-295-5644
Cell +1-813-465-0669

ccna_routerswitching_sm

From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:47 PM
To: 'scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [802.3_RTPGE] P802.3bp January Interim

Dear colleagues,

The proposed responses to the majority of received comments are now posted online at: http://www.ieee802.org/3/bp/comments/8023bp_D30_proposed-A.pdf.

Using the strategy that worked best for this Task Force in the past, during the Task Force meeting on Monday/Tuesday, we will discuss comments with no proposed responses (most require discussion at TF level) and comments earmarked for discussion. To mark a comment for discussion, please let me and Steve (via direct email, please do not use REPLY ALL) know what comments you would like TF to discuss and if possible - summary of your position / reason for pulling the comment out of bulk. Please consider participating in the comment resolution in P802.3bp to make sure your concern / position is represented in the best way possible.

All remaining comments with proposed responses will be approved in bulk at the end of the meeting.

Regards

Marek Hajduczenia, PhD, CCNA CSCO12874393
Network Architect, Principal Engineer
Bright House Networks
Office +1-813-295-5644
Cell +1-813-465-0669

ccna_routerswitching_sm

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven B. Carlson [mailto:scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 6:09 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_RTPGE] P802.3bp January Interim

Colleagues,

As mentioned in earlier emails, the initial sponsor ballot on D3.p closed

successfully on 14 January and the received comment database has been

posted. The agenda and presentations in support of comments have been posted

to the January 2016 web area.

The comment editorial team is working on proposed responses to the 180

comments (and 20 late comments, in case the TF choses to include them) and

will post them as soon as possible. Once posted, as we have done in the

past, we will ask you let the editor know which comments you would like

pulled out for discussion. The editorial team will create its own list as

well and we will resolve these on Monday and Tuesday in Atlanta. As this is

sponsor ballot, we will need to be particularly careful, complete and