| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Good morning, Bob Please see inline with [mh0917] markers Marek From: ROBERT GROW <bobgrow@xxxxxxx> Steve: Upon receiving David's anouncement of the P802.3cx preview, I took another look at your draft. I noted you might have a problem if not fixed before the September 802.3 WG interim. From the 802.3 WG Ops Man: 2.6.2 Draft Standard Balloting Requirements Before a draft is submitted to WG letter ballot it shall in addition have met the following requirements:
... 1. I searched on TBD and got 5 hits. Please add an abstract and keywords (even though these arguably are not open technical issues), and look at your clause 1 TBDs and either provide content, or remove the subclauses if you have determined that there are not new normative references, definitions or acronyms. [mh0917] I have a comment lined up for WG ballot to address abstract and keywords, and remove Clause 1 material from the draft. We kept Clause 1 in case something new needed to be inserted. Clearly, nothing new was added that would warrant new normative references, definitions, or abbreviations. 2. Though not a technical completeness issue, why is so much of your clause 30 content just a copy of existing text (pages 19 to 28)? A cursory scan turned up no changes, and I assume the absence of editing instructions means there is no change on those pages. [mh0917] but there are changes, Bob. Please take a look at 30.13.1.4, as an example. There are edits and they are marked up. Your observation on removal of the unchanged material in Clause 30 is spot on. I also have a comment lined up to get that done. 3. The editorial note on page 28 is an indication that the draft is not technically complete as required by 802.3 rules. [mh0917] I have a comment lined up to have it removed in WG ballot. 4. Arguable if technical completeness, but there is no editorial instruction to insert Annex 90A. [mh0917] An editorial note will be added to the draft – I missed it. 5. Not technical completeness (and I personally like an editor pointing at where they want additional thought), but the editorial note on page 73 might stimulate argument about technical completeness, though it indicates the possible figures would be additional explanatory content rather than providing missing technical specifications. [mh0917] The Annex is informative and the figures were merely discussed as potential aid to further improve readers’ understanding. Since nobody from the TF deemed them needed, I think it is safe to get this note removed. 6. Similar to #5, the editorial note on page 79 might generate discussion. [mh0917] Same as above, we had discussion in the TF, but individuals asking about option to include examples never provided contribution, so I believe it is safe to strike this note — Bob Grow To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DIALOG&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-DIALOG&A=1 |