RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed responses
Jonathan,
>> IMHO, you seem to be on a quest to bring the entire IEEE 802.3
>> document "up to standard." Doing this in the context of this
>> single project is not appropriate.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), your perception of my goal is incorrect.
^ ^ ^ (not capitalized :>)
I did not intend (but may have, by mistake) proposed changes
to the existing 802.3 specification.
>> IMHO, as this is a supplement to the existing document,
>> consistency with the existing documentation must necessarily trump
>> the IEEE style guide when conflicts are identified.
On the whole, 802.3 is not very consistent and has few defined
notational clauses that describe or mandate any of its many
(often self inconsistent) notational styles.
As such, the IEEE style guide should be used to select which of
the inconsistent 802.3 style should continue in the future, or which
conventions should be used when supplemental documents need to define
their own document-specific conventions.
If you refer to a name within the existing 802.3 standard, then there
is no point in changing the reference name style or format. However,
there is more flexibility when making new names within your portion
of the ammended standard.
>> Were IEEE P802.3ah (or any other project) to modify the style of a sub
>> portion of the IEEE 802.3 standard in a way that is inconsistent with the
>> existing document that has the potential of reducing readability, adding
>> confusion, and potentially even creating misunderstanding -- all of which
>> are inherently in conflict with the purposes of creating a standard -- I
>> would write a TR against it.
An example where this excuse was applied, when not applicable:
Only capitalize first word of a heading.
Precedence:
IEEE Std 802.3T-2002, page i:
Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with
collision detection (CSMA/CD) access
method and physical layer specifications
Proposed rejection on comment #385:
Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) access method
and physical layer specifications
==>
Carrier sense multiple access
with collision detection (CSMA/CD) access method
and physical layer specifications
Proposed Response
PROPOSED REJECT.
IEEE 802.3ah is an ammendment to 802.3.
The style is consistant with the 802.3 style and
has been reviewed by the IEEE Staff Editor.
>> If the IEEE Standards Board, editorial staff, of anyone else desires to
>> create a project and expend the effort to clean up all 3000 some pages of
>> the entire IEEE 802.3 standard simultaneously, I would strongly
>> commend it.
I doubt this could be managed. Rather, this sheer bulk is an argument in
favor
of Glen Parsons comment #1167; EFM should be a disinct easily maintained
document.
>> p.s. What I write here in no way excuses thoughtless, unsubstantiated
>> responses. In point of fact, any rejection should be extremely well
>> documented.
I view the following comment as "thoughtless and unsubstantiated":
"The style is consistant with the 802.3 style and
has been reviewed by the IEEE Staff Editor."
1) Its does not clearly identify the portion of 802.3 that
mandates this style.
2) Although IEEE Staff has good editors, they should not be
burdened with distinguishing betweeen technical terms that
are proper nouns (Ethernet) and those that are not
(forward error correction).
I would certainly appreciate your assistance in attempting to
better substantiate such responses.
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan
>> Thatcher
>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:21 AM
>> To: 'David V James'
>> Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3@ieee.org; 'Wael William Diab'
>> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
>> proposed responses
>>
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> IMHO, you seem to be on a quest to bring the entire IEEE 802.3
>> document "up
>> to standard." Doing this in the context of this single project is not
>> appropriate.
>>
>> IMHO, as this is a supplement to the existing document,
>> consistency with the
>> existing documentation must necessarily trump the IEEE style guide when
>> conflicts are identified.
>>
>> Were IEEE P802.3ah (or any other project) to modify the style of a sub
>> portion of the IEEE 802.3 standard in a way that is inconsistent with the
>> existing document that has the potential of reducing readability, adding
>> confusion, and potentially even creating misunderstanding -- all of which
>> are inherently in conflict with the purposes of creating a standard -- I
>> would write a TR against it.
>>
>> Please note that IEEE 802.17 is not a supplemental standard.
>>
>> If the IEEE Standards Board, editorial staff, of anyone else desires to
>> create a project and expend the effort to clean up all 3000 some pages of
>> the entire IEEE 802.3 standard simultaneously, I would strongly
>> commend it.
>>
>> jonathan
>>
>> p.s. What I write here in no way excuses thoughtless, unsubstantiated
>> responses. In point of fact, any rejection should be extremely well
>> documented.
>>
>> Jonathan Thatcher
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of David V
>> > James
>> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:43 AM
>> > To: Wael William Diab
>> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3@ieee.org
>> > Subject: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
>> > proposed responses
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > William,
>> >
>> > It is sadening to see that the 802.3 editors are willing to blow off
>> > valid notation-inconsistency comments with a step-and-repeat answer:
>> > IEEE 802.3ah is an ammendment to 802.3.
>> > The style is consistant with the 802.3 style and
>> > has been reviewed by the IEEE Staff Editor.
>> >
>> > You should be aware that, in all cases, this notation is inconsistent
>> > with portions of the 802.3 draft and/or the IEEE style manual. While I
>> > understand that this casual disregard of valid comments is blessed at
>> > the highest level of your working group (I have saved their email),
>> > it will not (in my opinion) be blessed by the IEEE Standards board.
>> >
>> > When such comments were submitted during the IEEE 802.17 WG ballots,
>> > they were addressed with seriousness and a much improved document
>> > resulted. I'm disappointed that your group was not as receptive
>> > and (in fact) seems committed to sustaining bad editing practices
>> > as an excuse for timeliness to completion.
>> >
>> > This "quick and dirty" approach is unlikely to give you the timely
>> > completion that you desire. Deferring these issues to Sponsor ballot
>> > will only extend you completion time further, and delays for a
>> > Standard Board appeal and rewrite would be even worse.
>> >
>> > Regretfully,
>> > DVJ
>> >
>> >
>> > David V. James
>> > 3180 South Ct
>> > Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> > Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> > +1.650.856.9801
>> > Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> > Fax: +1.360.242.5508
>> > Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> >
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: owner-stds-802-3@majordomo.ieee.org
>> > >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>> > Wael William
>> > >> Diab
>> > >> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:36 AM
>> > >> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3@ieee.org
>> > >> Subject: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed
>> > >> responses
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD Working Group
>> > >> and the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force,
>> > >>
>> > >> Your 802.3ah editorial teams have produced suggested
>> > responses to the
>> > >> 1270 comments in our D2.0 comment database!
>> > >>
>> > >> A pdf with the comments and suggested responses can be
>> > downloaded from
>> > >> our comments page at:
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/
>> > >>
>> > >> My thanx to all the editorial teams, our editorial leads
>> > as well as our
>> > >> honorary comment editor, Brad, for all of their hard work.
>> > >>
>> > >> There is a fair amount of work and a significant number of
>> > comments for
>> > >> us to get through next week. So please try downloading and
>> > reviewing the
>> > >> proposed responses.
>> > >>
>> > >> I look forward to our meeting in Italy
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Wael William Diab
>> > >> Editor-In-Chief, IEEE 802.3ah
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>