RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed responses
David -
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did specifically identify
clarity as an issue for concern.
Regards,
Tony
At 08:24 16/09/2003 -0700, David V James wrote:
>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
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
Regards,
Tony