| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
At today’s ad hoc, I mentioned that we’d be turning towards the process of refining our specifications. Some of you are already looking at our existing baselines and thinking about refinements. Early next week, Valerie Maguire, our chief Editor, will be releasing draft 0.3. Our job at this point will turn to trying to fill out that draft. Our first, and primary task is to get to D1.0 – that means priority will be given to presentations which advance our selecting baselines for each area of the draft (as opposed to either presenting perspectives for study or refinements/corrections
on already filled in specs). Natalie Wienckowski gave a nice primer on baselines at the last NGAUTO ad hoc. It can be found at
http://www.ieee802.org/3/ch/public/adhoc/wienckowski_3ch_baselines.pdf Here is my outlook on what we need to fill in first. It will help our schedule to focus on filling things first. The time for refinements of existing specs will come when we enter Task Force review, hopefully coming out of the November
meeting. Long reach PHY: 10BASE-T1L (1000m PHY) is in reasonable shape – you will be able to easily see the areas needing further definition, but most of the major areas have meat on their bones. We could use some baseline text for the Service Primitives and Interfaces
(if you don’t know what I mean, you probably shouldn’t be writing this), but other than that, there are specifications with marked TBD’s in the draft. Short reach PHY & Multidrop: We are making progress on the 10BASE-T1S (short reach) PHY and the multidrop – but we need to have crisp proposals to adopt in November. These should ideally come with text. Don’t worry about formatting your text, it needs to be reformatted
anyways. If you are looking for guidance on content, see what Steffen provided last meeting (it was more than enough), or, better yet, reference existing 802.3 clauses. If you are copying a figure or text from an existing clause with minor modifications,
please note that – it makes all our jobs easier understanding what vetting the text has been through. Powering Modifications to PoDL need work and baseline text. We have new modes, and will need to deal with a longer/more capacitive link segment. Chris Diminico is working on the powering annex we approved, that should be in draft 0.3 for your review – look there and see what else it needs. Autonegotiation How we meet our Autonegotiation needs a baseline proposal – Steffen’s presentation today was a (big) step in the right direction, but we need to get consensus and a proposal. Energy Efficient Ethernet We have an objective to support optional Energy Efficient Ethernet. This is to allow the PHY to consume less power when no data is being sent (only idles). Both long reach and short reach PHYs need this. In preparation for Task Force review, if you still have time to make refinements on our existing text after filling in the baselines, you should get familiar with the comment process. Comments are the way we correct the draft. You basically point to the subclause, line number, and text that offends you, and offer a crisp description of the problem and a brief fix. 1 comment, 1 problem. Chad Jones put it best, for
the BT group: “Chad's general rules to make comments easier to read (thus easier to resolve): DO copy the text you are commenting against and paste into the comment. This helps immensly if you have a typo in the page or line number DO cover only one topic per comment. file multiple comments for multiple concepts in the same page/line. DO NOT make a comment and leave the suggested remedy empty. If you know it is a problem, you have an idea of the answer. Share this with the
group. DO make crisp comments, minimize 'stream of conciousness' style of writing. Present the facts and the solution.” Please don’t give half sentences or assume the editor knows what you mean in all but the simplest circumstances. For example, instead of saying “fix the typo above”, you should say, “change ‘stream of conciousness’ to ‘stream of consciousness’
on line x of page y. There are 3 ways to submit comments (but really only 2, unless you want to incur your editor’s wrath and make your own life difficult by manually writing up comments which then need to be checked). You may find the comment entry tools at
http://www.ieee802.org/3/WG_tools/index.html The two ways are by Spreadsheet or using the comment tool. My preferred method (because you can review it and it produces clear text) is to use the comment spreadsheet: Then there will be the formal process, which we will get to after November. For more information on that see:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bt/public/nov14/diab_01_0512.pdf
- note that the “R” designation really doesn’t have much meaning in task force review, only to underscore how important you think the comment is.
Also, see ‘Chad’s rules for making comments’:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bt/public/nov14/Rules%20for%20making%20comments.txt
George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 |