| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I think Mr. Tremblay was our delegate into that group. Perhaps he will be on the call and can provide us some insight. Regardless we can look at the documents themselves for changes - there are few… George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
310-920-3860
On Jun 3, 2023, at 10:13 AM, thompson@xxxxxxxx wrote:
George-
You had said earlier that Mick was in poor health but I had not realized that he had died.
Given that he was doing comment resolution mostly (entirely?) on his own it is quite reasonable for us to do a comment by comment check to see if the next version was correctly implemented. It would seem that should be able
to be done as an offer to be helpful to the committee to help them with this difficult transition. We should offer our work to them on that basis.
Geoff
On Saturday, June 3, 2023, 09:47:05 AM PDT, George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter – It never hurts to do what you can. We have the two documents, and I was able to do an electronic comparison. There are very few differences. NOTHING appears to have been changed by the previous rapporteur, and only minor editorial changes were made by the new leadership. Under ordinary conditions, you are correct, we could just look at the comment resolution file, but these are not ordinary conditions. You may not be aware, but shortly after the last comment cycle, the Rappoteur and editor’s health took a turn for the worse. Mick Maytum passed away unexpectedly in January 2023. I have been working with a related Power and Energy Society group that Mick was an editor for, and the files there were basically untouched from the early fall of 2022, and left in quite a state of disarray. I would think that the new leadership in this ITU-T group is trying to get things organized and probably does not have a full accounting of the comment resolution. Regardless, we can compare the two documents, so we should have what is necessary to do our jobs.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860
From: Peter Fischer <p.fischer@xxxxxx>
Dear all
I am just wondering about the need of compare 2 version of documents. It seems you have not received/requested the CC file with the comments and the respective resolution. Then you would see directly if your comments were agreed or disagree and why. That might be a hint to adjust the comment to the group responsible for this document, else it is always to much work for little insights on implemented changes.
I propose you contact the liaison responsible or the committee in charge directly to get this additional information which will help to improve the collaboration with any other committee. If you provide comments, you should be also allowed to get the feedback.
Best regards
Von: Chad Jones (cmjones) <00000b60b3f54e8d-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All, I have posted George’s compare document in the PDCC k147 private area.
Regards,
Chad Jones Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
From:
George Zimmerman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chad – I note that the two documents are nearly identical (30 May and 2 June). I then went to compare the 2nd June document with the last one we reviewed and commented on – 27 October. The substantive changes shown in the document are marked as introduced by Mick Maytum on 21 October, and are included in the document that we reviewed for our November comments. There appear to be editorial changes added by the new editors, which I don’t really have a problem with. I have done an electronic compare and confirmed this.
Given the timing of Mick’s decline in health, and the date of our comments, it seems reasonable that the comments either were not considered yet, or were not implemented. It may be useful for reviewers to post the result of the comparison of the 2 June text and the 27 October text. I will provide that separately to you by email. -george
From: Chad Jones (cmjones) <00000b60b3f54e8d-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All, I have been informed that they SG5 meetings (the group that owns the K.147 document occur June 13-23. Therefore, we DO need to discuss K.147 in the June 7 meeting. I’ve posted a new document from SG5, which looks to be the main document unchanged with some changes to the abstract. I’ve started review of the new K.147 and, unsurprisingly, our comments were largely ignored. I welcome others to review, please send me a marked up document by COB Tuesday June 6 so I can work to incorporate into one doc before the PDCC meeting on the 7th.
Regards,
Chad Jones Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 <image002.png>
<image001.jpg>
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1 |
