| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
George, I think that you and Bob are on the right path. Regards Peter _______________________________________________________________ Peter Jones Distinguished Engineer,
Cisco Networking Hardware Chair, Ethernet Alliance
Mobile: +1 408 315 8024 Email: petejone@xxxxxxxxx Web:
https://about.me/petergjones
Webex:
https://cisco.webex.com/meet/petejone Book a call:
http://bit.ly/3ZuzqBs
_______________________________________________________________ From: George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Wayne – The objectives are not for ‘end users’. They don’t get published in the standard anymore. They are the Task Force’s advertisement to (and, as Geoff would say, contract with) the 802.3 working group telling
them what the Task Force is supposed to be doing. Knowing what we are trying to achieve aids the reviewers in the working group who are not in the task force to better review our document and see if we did what we said we were trying to do. As such, objectives
are not specifications, but are an explanation of what we intend to do in the specifications, and sometimes with a little guidance on the form that is expected to take. As I said before, by the strict rules, you don’t NEED ANY objectives, and usually I go by the maxim that less is more. Therefore, I look at each objective relative to what it says to the members of 802.3
– as setting context for the draft – not as the machinery for writing a specifciation. Whether you need a particular objective or not is therefore a judgement call. Ultimately one that the voting membership of 802.3 makes. In this case, as we are removing any mention of how we connect into the mixing segment, and we are introducing a new interface point, replacing the ‘connector’ objective with a description of what we ARE
doing seems like a good thing to do. You will note I had slightly different wording than Bob, but I think in principle something is needed here. From: Wayne Larsen <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Bob, Are you afraid we will specify the connector in such a way as to preclude meeting the communications and powering objectives? Or that we need to advise end-users on what kind of connectors to use to assure
this? I’m trying to understand the need for this objective. I think the need for overall system performance, and objectives to do that, can justify whatever specifications are needed to do that. Wayne From: Bob Voss <Bob.Voss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ah, I see your point, Wayne. However, when 802.3da goes to SA ballot, the sharp-eyed folks are going to spot that we have added physical and electrical characteristics for these
connections. As Geoff Thompson pointed out in our most recent ad hoc, there will be a problem if there is not an objective driving that inclusion. Mindful of the fact that Geoff has been doing this work a lot longer than me, I believe we need such an objective
but realize that my wording may need refinement. Bob To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-SPMD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-SPMD&A=1 |