[EFM] Early comments for your convenience
All,
In response to leadership requests, I have limited
my comments on your D2.1 draft. Hopefully, this will
allow the group to focus on the technical topics that
are now thought to have predecence.
As clarification, two previous emails are attached.
DVJ
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:41 PM
>> To: Bob Grow
>> Cc: Howard Frazier; bboth@ieee.org
>> Subject: P802.3ah/D2.1 comments
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Comments as an observer.
>>
>> From previous direct/indirect comments, I have assumed
>> you wish to defer the detailed style comments. As such,
>> I have provide only a few illustrative editorials.
>>
>> There are some questions on OUI that I have raised
>> as technical nonbinding comments.
>> Since many IEEE/RAC positions appear to be in flux,
>> submission of liason letters to the IEEE/RAC are
>> probably the only way to get definitive guidance.
>>
>> DVJ
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David V James [mailto:dvj@alum.mit.edu]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:28 PM
>> To: Howard Frazier
>> Cc: Mike Takefman; Bob Davis; Tony Jeffree; Geoff Thompson; Bob Grow;
>> Robert D Love; Gary Robinson; Don Wright
>> Subject: An apology
>>
>>
>> Howard,
>>
>> Please forward this open apology whatever limited and/or public
>> distributions that you feel would be most beneficial.
>>
>> DVJ
>>
>>
>> To: Howard Frazier
>> Cc: Bob Grow
>> (WG 802.3ah if desired)
>> On: Apology
>>
>> Before and during your last meeting, I had spent considerable time
>> on the P802.3ah draft and P802.17 drafts, in attempts to resolve
>> editorial problems before Sponsor ballots.
>>
>> I was in a relatively sleep deprived state, I reacted poorly to
>> early rejections, with inappropriate speculations of appeals.
>> For this I appologize.
>>
>> With more sleep and a few helpful discussions, the following
>> appears apparent and should therefore be clarified:
>>
>> 1) My primary technical focus is for correctness of OUI usage,
>> as an invited member of the IEEE/RAC. IEEE/RAC is not always
>> unified (having to represent multiple Sponsors), so you may
>> want to request clarifications from the IEEE/RAC directly.
>>
>> 2) As an editor, even quick scans generate multiple comments.
>> While commenting as an Observer, these comments will be
>> marked as editorial, to streamline your resolution process.
>>
>> 3) If the TF desires, my generation of (editorial comments
>> (mentioned above) can be deferred for later WG recirculations
>> or Sponsor ballot.
>>
>> 4) When (and if) requested, some of my (no travel $$) limited
>> time is available for assisting with notation subclauses
>> and/or formulation of higher level editorial policies.
>>
>> 5) My preferences for FrameMaker templates are irrelevant;
>> the selection of editing templates is a WG decision.
>>
>> 6) Sponsor ballot policies are established and sufficient, no
>> appeal is planned or necessary.
>>
>> I hope these clarifications will assist the WG to focus on the
>> important/necessary tasks for a timely completion.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> DVJ
>>