| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I would love to eliminate repetition, for all the reasons you highlighted.
However, we don’t want to make the standard difficult to read. And there is the precedent from other clauses to consider.
Perhaps the 802.3 brain trust can give us some guidance. We are happy to oblige.
Frank E From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Frank,
I do not believe any *watermark* is needed at this time, since this is a contribution from an individual, right? It only happens to look similar to what
the initial draft version would look like. I think it might be best to consult David here on what the right approach is. All I know is that distributing it as if it was an official copyrighted draft is confusing.
If the preference is to separate single-fiber PMDs from multi-fiber PMDs (I still find it odd that any of the editors would actually recommend that, given the
added maintenance mess if adds) we should strive to keep all single-fiber PMDs in one clause. After all, a lot of the material will be similar. Effectively, what I am trying to figure out is how we can get the draft out without having to repeat too much material
from existing clauses, and avoid repetition over and over again within the new clause(s), unless there is a very good reason for it.
The base standard is becoming larger and larger quickly with each new project, and while electronic version is still very usable, all the repetitive material is
just a nightmare for future maintenance projects Marek From: frank effenberger <frank.effenberger@xxxxxxxxxx>
HI Marek,
It is true that this is not any kind of official draft. Perhaps we should put a watermark across each page, saying so. That would avoid confusion.
As for adding columns to existing clauses, I had socialized that with a few other editors, and their view was that significantly different PHY types
should be in different clauses. Changing the medium from 2 fiber to 1 fiber is considered a significant change.
As for the repetition of material, that is a concern. We can always try to use references back to the existing clause for any sub-sections that
we do not change. Effectively, these BiDi PMD clauses will end up reading a lot like amendments. However, I notice that other PMDs that were derivatives do repeat a lot of material. I could go either way on that issue.
Sincerely, Frank E From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Duane, Since this is not any "draft" at this time, and certainly not an official Task Force draft, it seems that all copyright and versioning information should be struck from these contributions. This might be confusing for
people. Also, given the volume of overlap with other PMDs of the similar type, I will repeat my observation from the last meeting - rather than have to prepare brand *new* clauses, that look 97% (or more) like the clauses we
already have in the standard, why not add new columns in PMD tables and define new PMD types to address the new target functionality instead? That is a much simpler approach since we do not have to create and replicate content at all, keeping PMDs with already
existing PMDs of similar type. All we need then is an extension to Clause 56 (likely) to list new PMD types and describe why they are special and point to particular existing clauses where they are defined? Marek On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:17 PM Duane Remein <Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGBIDI list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGBIDI&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-NGBIDI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-NGBIDI&A=1 |