RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed responses
Tony,
I disagree and am quite surprized/shocked by your statements.
From my experience in the IEEE/RAC, which you Chair,
we have found that unclear text has (in many instances) led to
incorrect implementations, with expensive consequences.
One cannot rely on the IEEE to accomplish this difficult task,
since much of it is content-specific, the errors are massive,
their time is short, and the pressures-for-publication are
enormous.
Its not that hard of a task to write correctly; my child was
taught the usage of proper nouns in 8th grade. Where there
is a will, there is a way, as I found in other standards.
"If you're getting hung up on formatting etc., you probably
have way too much time on your hands, and you are focusing
it on the wrong issues."
I disagree with trivializing of writing quality controls.
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 Tony Jeffree
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:49 AM
To: David V James
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
proposed responses
David -
From my own experience of the editing process over a small number of
decades, a few observations:
1) The primary concern of the working group balloting process is to fix the
technical accuracy of the document. Unless questions of formatting, style,
and capitalization directly affect the technical content (such as would be
the case if Foo and foo and FOO were all for some arcane reason assigned
particular and distinct meanings), then these issues are not part of the
WG's primary concern.
2) The editorial consistency of a document is the primary concern of the
IEEE Editors, to ensure that, once a document has been rendered technically
consistent/correct by the WG, it is then rendered consistent with the IEEE
style manual (in the case of new standards) and/or consistent with the
parent document (in the case of amendments/corrigendae). The latter is
important because, in the case of long-lived and much extended standards
such as 802.3, the style rules will have undergone many changes over the
lifetime of the standard, and (particularly in the case of 802.3), it may
also be constrained by ISO style rules as well as our own, as it gets to be
published as an ISO standards as well as an IEEE standard. So, there is no
way that a (relatively) small amendment can attempt to take on the updating
of the entire parent standard; that is the job of a revision PAR should the
WG decide it to be necessary.
3) Whatever the WG does/does not do with regard to editorial/style
consistency during the drafting of a standard, the IEEE editors can and will
edit the document according to their own interpretation of the need for
consistency with the parent document and/or with the IEEE style guide, as
they see fit, and ultimately, while the WG editor may offer guidance in this
process where it really matters (see Foo, foo, FOO above), they don't get
the last word.
4) Given 1), 2), and 3), while comments from WG and/or Sponsor ballot voters
on editorial style and consistency issues may be helpful (and I use "may"
with its standards meaning here, which is entirely interchangeable with "may
not"), they should not be considered to be show stoppers, either by the
voter or by the WG, and certainly not the basis for appeals to higher
authorities. For this reason, all 802.1 drafts contain the following wording
in the Editor's Notes in the front matter:
"PLEASE NOTE: All issues related to IEEE standards presentation style,
formatting, spelling, etc. are routinely handled between the 802.1 Editor
and the IEEE Staff Editors prior to publication, once the balloting process
has completed the process of achieving agreement on the technical content of
the standard. Readers are therefore strongly urged to devote their valuable
time and energy only to comments that materially affect either the technical
content of the document or the clarity with which that technical content is
expressed."
Which is our polite way of saying to our voters "If you're getting hung up
on formatting etc., you probably have way too much time on your hands, and
you are focusing it on the wrong issues."
Regards,
Tony
At 19:22 15/09/2003 -0700, David V James wrote:
Jonathan,
>> Mr. david v james,
Please call me informal, DVJ, David, or David V. James.
When formal (which I don't prefer, but is acceptable)
the formal name is Dr. David V. James or Dr. James.
>> On the other hand, should your comment about comment 385
>> regarding capitalization of the first word of a heading apply to
>> a proper noun?
Words are capitalized if they are a proper noun or the first word
of a heading.
>> Is RPR known as "Resilient packet ring" or "Resilient Packet Ring?"
As per page 23 of Draft 2.5, available on
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/17/member/draftballots/d2_5/P802_17D2_5.p
df,
I believe you EFM password works (if not, ask you Chair for password).
"Resilient packet ring (RPR) is a ..."
Note that:
1) The text capitalization is consistent with the cover page.
2) The capitalization is consistent with acronym definitions
(words only capitalized if a proper noun).
3) The cover sheet capitalization is consistent with the
first page of Clause 1.
Just because something is in the title does not mean its a proper
noun, in much the same way that "overview" is not a proper noun.
You may also want to look at RPR pages 64-71, which cover capitalization
and acronyms in a consistent fashion. Not all text truely conform,
since we still have some lax editors, but bad habits are being broken
gently and consistently.
You can steal that text, as IEEE copyrights allow cross-fertilization.
Ethernet's official name, for better or
>> worse, is "Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision
>> Detection" and should be capitalized (perhaps the "with" should
>> also be capitalized :-) wherever used.
I have a hard time understanding why that is a proper noun,
rather than simply a title.
1) The first page of 802.3-2002
clearly indicates its a title, as follows:
Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with
collision detection (CSMA/CD) access
method and physical layer specifications
2) If the "with" is still being debated, its not a proper noun.
So, based on "precedence" (and IEEE editor review, as the
resolutions have noted is _so_ important :>),
that's a title, not a proper noun, and "with" is lower case.
These things actually make sense, but they do tend to
stimulate the NIH emotions within independent engineers.
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]
>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:45 PM
>> To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
>> proposed responses
>>
>>
>> Pat,
>>
>> I do not think that we are very far apart. IEEE 802.3 present
>> and future editors should know what our conventions are, even if
>> these have not been used consistently in the past. These should
>> indeed be documented in the conventions section. We should be
>> pursuing consistency with these conventions for all
>> supplemental, amendment, maintenance, etc. work.
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly that new standards (and wholesale
>> revisions) to standards should assiduously follow the IEEE style
>> guide (until the style guide changes). Then self-consistency
>> should again rule.
>>
>> Your point about comment 448 is well taken.
>>
>> Mr. david v james,
>>
>> On the other hand, should your comment about comment 385
>> regarding capitalization of the first word of a heading apply to
>> a proper noun? Is RPR known as "Resilient packet ring" or
>> "Resilient Packet Ring?" Ethernet's official name, for better or
>> worse, is "Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision
>> Detection" and should be capitalized (perhaps the "with" should
>> also be capitalized :-) wherever used.
>>
>> Jonathan thatcher
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 12:40 PM
>> > To: jonathan@ccser.com; dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3@ieee.org; wdiab@cisco.com
>> > Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
>> > proposed responses
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan,
>> >
>> > I agree with you only in part.
>> >
>> > For example, on the comments regarding capitalization -
>> > capitalization styles have changed in IEEE over the nearly 20
>> > years since the original 802.3 was published. Also, over
>> > time, we have also gotten more aware of the importance of
>> > conventions and consistancy in understanding the standards.
>> > We have felt that it was not worth the effort and risk of
>> > unintended changes to apply this retroactively to the
>> > original clauses. It makes sense to keep usages of existing
>> > terms and in existing clauses consistant with what is already
>> > there. If we wanted to do a major overhaul to bringg the
>> > existing clauses up to snuff, this should be done in a
>> > revision and not as part of an amendment. Personally, I don't
>> > think the benefit would be worth the effort.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect new clauses to
>> > follow the conventions established in the existing document
>> > (especially those adopted in 10BASE-T and later). For
>> > instance, there should be a consistant style for types such
>> > as variable names, state names, etc. I believe we have been
>> > doing this in addtitions such as 802.3ae though not with the
>> > same granularity that David requested (e.g. we use the same
>> > style for constants and variables). It would also be
>> > reasonable to craft an addition to a Notation section to
>> > describe the name style conventions so that future editors
>> > and readers don't have to derive it by looking at the examples.
>> >
>> > I also notice that David's comment 448 was rejected. It makes
>> > a valid request - that we use a consistant notation for hex
>> > and binary. The particular solution in his suggested remedy
>> > is too inconsistant with our existing document so we should
>> > not accept that resolution, but we should use a clear and
>> > consistant notation. For hex, we have adopted a "0x" prefix
>> > to denote hex and that should be consistantly used. We
>> > documented that convention in IEEE 802.3ae 1.2.5.
>> >
>> > On binary numbers, we don't have much of a convention. Often
>> > they are used where the context is clear (e.g. in a figure
>> > showing the value of a byte field or in a code table showing
>> > 8B/10B values). In other places the value is specifically
>> > identified as binary (e.g. "the binary value xxxxx" or "xxxxx
>> > binary"). It would be reasonable to decide on a convention
>> > for the future, document it, and apply it to new clauses.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Pat
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:jonathan@ccser.com]
>> > 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
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>