Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site
Hugh,
Great summary of the IEEE process and my respect to you for addressing the
key points so clearly.
We have seen already projects within 802.3 WG that took a long time to
develop consensus but when it was finally achieved and the appropriate
number of baseline proposals was adopted, the progress was swift and bounded
only by the minimum number of required draft circulations. We have also seen
projects that were developed in a record time, primarily because there was
no doubt as to what needed to be done and everybody pulled in the same
direction.
In P802.3bn project, I think our main problem until last meeting was the
lack of solid consensus on key items as well as the number of topics to look
at and creep of new features (still ongoing). I believe that once we get the
basic decisions out of the way and get a better idea on how individual
functional blocks within the EPoC PMD are to interact with each other,
progress will be swift. What was missing at the last meeting though was
decision on the order of interaction between individual functional blocks -
this is something we should try to remedy as soon as possible, to give
individual contributors a better idea on e.g., where FEC is to be located
(PCS, PMA, PMD ?).
Regards
Marek
From: Hugh Barrass (hbarrass) [mailto:hbarrass@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2013 2:09 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site
Jorge,
The "IEEE spec process" is not causing delays. The Task Force has not
reached the part of the process that is (frustratingly) slow - ballot
cycles. The problem with delays in the task force can be summed up with one
word - people.
There is no reason why the meeting should be a "2-3 day marathon to cram as
many things as possible." If the people in the task force wished to make
progress, the meeting would consist of 2 or 3 presentations that capture the
consensus of the group and some motions to adopt these baselines. It should
be expected that the time between task force meetings should be spent
constructively by task force members discussing, negotiating and (crucially)
agreeing on issues. Anyone who hopes to persuade technical opponents purely
by bringing a long presentation to the task force is a fool. At this stage
in the process, every presentation that is worth presenting should have a
list of supporters that capture the bulk of the task force demographics.
Unfortunately, there is no chain of command in an IEEE process. There is
nothing that can be done to force the people involved to reach the
agreements necessary. Until and unless the people start working towards the
same goals, the process will seem (and be) frustratingly long and pointless.
Once the people (and their attitudes) are aligned then the process will move
as rapidly as feasible - given the nature of a recognized international
standard.
Hugh.
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:11 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site
Yes, that's very true.
I guess I am just referring to getting the requirements for building the
equipment, which for the IEEE standard (in this case at least for
comparison) would end up taking about twice as long. I also know that the
equipment is built in parallel with the development of the IEEE standard,
but that happens with DOCSIS as well (for example, D3.1 SOC development is
already in progress).
To that end, I believe that there are things that could be done, at least
from my perspective, to streamline the IEEE process. For example, I see the
IEEE process as a 2-3 day marathon to cram as many things as possible every
2 months, while I see the DOCSIS process as a continuous stream of work and
decisions. Wouldn't it be possible to take the best of both worlds, and get
an international standard but with a smoother and faster organizational
approach?
Jorge
From: <Jones>, Douglas Jones <Douglas_Jones3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:35 AM
To: Comcast User <jorge_salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, EPoC Task Force
<STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: updated technical decisions on web site
IEEE does not write specifications, rather, it creates international
standards.
CableLabs creates specifications for the North American cable industry. For
a CableLabs specification to become an internatinoal standard, it would have
to go through both the ANSI process (likely SCTE) and then an international
standards process. These would easily tack on a few years. With that
perspective, the IEEE process looks quick.
dj
From: Salinger, Jorge [mailto:Jorge_Salinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:01 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site
Dear EPoC TF colleagues,
I know I was not able to attend the meeting last week to comment on the new
timeline, so I recognize that in some way this a Monday quarterbacking
comment. But, I can't help but express my frustration with the IEEE Spec
process. According to this new schedule the standard will now take almost 3
years! If you just counted the time from the TF to the Sponsor Ballot, as I
heard from many that we should count, this is still just shy of 2 years. I
believe that things won't happen any faster than the schedule shows, and
further believe that they will quite possibly take longer.
By comparison, the DOCSIS 3.1 spec, which I believe to be quite more
complex, will take about 1 year from start to finish. In fact, as things
look we'll likely have Certified products before the EPoC standard is
completed.
I think I have heard all the reasons why the IEEE standards take as long as
they do (e.g., open process, better specs, its people and not companies that
contribute and vote, etc., etc.). But, this process just does not keep with
the pace of our times. There is got to be something that can be
fundamentally changed in the IEEE standard process to make it more
streamlined.
I would really like to look into what can be done, discuss options, and see
if we can find a way to improve on the timeline. And I have some thoughts
about this already, some of which It hope we could be applied already, now,
for EPoC.
So, if I am not the only one wanting to get the process to improve its
velocity, then I would be the first to volunteer to try to do so.
Regards,
Jorge
From: Mark Laubach [mailto:laubach@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:21 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] updated technical decisions on web site
Dear IEEE P802.3bn EPoC PHY Task Force participants,
Based on the technical motions approved at this meeting (28 motions), the
list of technical decisions on our website has been updated to include each
of these motions. Please see:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bn/public/decisions/decisions.html
In addition, the Task Force timeline was updated as of today. Please see:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bn/public/tf_timeline_updated_130321.pdf
Yours truly,
Mark Laubach, Chair,
IEEE P802.3bn Task Force
Broadband Communications Group
Broadcom Corporation
1351 Redwood Way
Petaluma, CA, 94954
broadcom.jpg
Tel: +1.707.792.9093
Cell: +1.650.996.2219
_____
<="" p="">
_____
<="" p="">
_____
<="" p="">
_____
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
