Re: [RE] RESG Interim Meeting - Ottawa, CA - September 30 - October 1, 2004
Steve,
Relative to the following:
>> I would also suggest that the reflector focus on
>> objectives, rather than specific technical discussions.
I can never figure this out, despite numerous postings
of similar messages. I know of, similarly confused.
Within the 5 criteria, I note two in specific:
6.4 Technical Feasibility
For a project to be authorized, it shall be able to show its
technical feasibility. At a minimum, the proposed project
shall show:
a) Demonstrated system feasibility.
b) Proven technology, reasonable testing.
c) Confidence in reliability.
6.5 Economic Feasibility
For a project to be authorized, it shall be able to
show economic feasibility (so far as can reasonably be
estimated), for its intended applications. At a minimum,
the proposed project shall show:
a) Known cost factors, reliable data.
b) Reasonable cost for performance.
c) Consideration of installation costs.
I fail to understand how these can be accomplished without
at least a straw-man proposal, which implies specific
technical discussions.
What am I missing?
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-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Steve Carlson
>> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 4:41 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [RE] RESG Interim Meeting - Ottawa, CA - September 30 - October
>> 1, 2004
>>
>>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> Bob Grow, Chair of 802.3, has asked me to Chair the Residential Ethernet
>> Study Group meeting at the Ottawa Interim. For those of you who
>> don't know
>> me, I serve as the Secretary of the 802.3 Working Group, and was
>> the Chair
>> of P802.3af, popularly known as the "Power over Ethernet" Task
>> Force. I have
>> also done standards work in other SDO's, most notably the Entertainment
>> Services and Technology Association, which is the ANSI E1 secretariat for
>> entertainment technology standards for professional use. My role is to
>> facilitate the operation of the SG and to insure that IEEE policies are
>> followed.
>>
>> If you are new to 802.3, please visit
>> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/index.html and read up on how we do
>> business:
>>
>> -Operating Rules of IEEE Project 802 Working Group 802.3, CSMA/CD LANs.
>>
>> -Requirements for Voting on IEEE 802.3 Drafts.
>>
>> -Typical Working Group 802.3 meetings during IEEE 802 Plenary Week.
>>
>> -Requesting an interpretation of the Standard.
>>
>> -IEEE 802.3 Patent policy.
>>
>> -Discussion of Cost in Working Group 802.3.
>>
>> You should also visit http://standards.ieee.org/, the home page
>> of the IEEE
>> Standards Association, to get an overall view of how standards
>> work is done
>> within the IEEE. Reading up of this will hopefully save some
>> confusion and
>> questions as the group moves along.
>>
>> The RESG is not chartered with producing a standard. That is the job of a
>> Task Force. The Study Group was formed to study the problem
>> presented at the
>> Call for Interest. The work of the SG may result in the formation of an
>> 802.3 Task Force. The life of a Study Group is generally six
>> months. At that
>> time it will either request the creation of a Task Force by submitting
>> objectives, the PAR and 5 Criteria to the 802.3 Working Group. If the SG
>> decides that there is no project that falls under 802.3, the SG is
>> disbanded.
>>
>> I am pleased at the volume of traffic on the RESG reflector. It is clear
>> that we have a diverse group with equally diverse opinions!
>> I would like to remind everyone of the IEEE reflector policy:
>>
>> "IEEE 802.3 reflectors shall only be used for official business
>> relating to
>> IEEE 802.3 and its sub-groups. Technical discussions/questions,
>> comments on
>> presentations and documents, meeting announcements, etc., are acceptable
>> uses of a reflector. Communications are expected to be respectful,
>> dignified, and germane.
>>
>> IEEE 802.3 reflectors are not 'free speech' forums. Subscriptions are
>> granted to further the purposes of IEEE 802.3 and may be revoked for
>> inappropriate communications. These include, but are not limited to:
>> recruiting, advertising, soliciting, spamming, flaming, whining, whinging
>> and disparaging individuals or companies.
>>
>> IEEE 802.3 operates in an open manner. To that end, no material
>> submitted to
>> IEEE 802.3, or any of its sub-groups, will be accepted or
>> considered if it
>> contains any statement that places any burden on the recipient(s) with
>> respect to confidentiality or copyright. Any communication, including
>> electronic mail, containing language with such restrictive
>> wording will not
>> be accepted or considered.
>>
>> Note - this policy regarding confidentiality and copyrights does
>> not apply
>> to IEEE copyrighted materials, such as draft standards.
>>
>> In addition, IEEE 802.3 reflectors operate under the IEEE Acceptable Use
>> Practices.
>>
>> The Chair of the group to which a reflector is dedicated shall
>> enforce these
>> policies."
>>
>> A Study Group creates a set of objectives that define the scope
>> of the work
>> to be done. I have seen some discussion on the reflector about the PAR
>> (Program Authorization Request) and the 5 Criteria. These are
>> requirements
>> of the IEEE to move a project forward and create as Task Force. We will
>> discuss this in some detail at the Ottawa meeting, but our
>> primary focus for
>> this meeting is the creation of objectives which set the project's scope.
>> Without objectives, there is no project. The objectives tell us
>> the problem
>> that we are trying to solve within the context of 802.3.
>>
>> To that end, I would like presentations to speak to objectives,
>> rather than
>> to a particular technical solution. I predict a lively and interesting
>> debate. I would also suggest that the reflector focus on
>> objectives, rather
>> than specific technical discussions.
>>
>> Requesting Presentation Time
>>
>> Presenters shall request time by 5PM Pacific time on Monday,
>> September 20,
>> 2004.
>> Requests shall be submitted to the Chair.
>> The presenter shall provide the following information:
>>
>> Name of presenter
>> Title of presentation
>> Length of time requested(30 minutes maximum, unless special arrangements
>> have been made with the Chair. This should include time for questions and
>> answers)
>>
>> If the "requesting presentation time" deadline is missed, time will be
>> provided on a best-effort basis following the completion of the regular
>> agenda (or as deemed appropriate by the chair).
>>
>> Presentation Submission
>>
>> It is highly recommended a PDF, soft-copy version of the presentation be
>> emailed to the Chair by Wednesday, September 22, 2004.
>>
>> A PDF, soft-copy version of the presentation shall be emailed to
>> the Chair
>> by Sunday preceding the meeting.
>> If the presentation submission deadlines are missed, the
>> presenter will be
>> allowed to present only if electronic copies or hard copies of the
>> presentation are made available to the group at the beginning of
>> the meeting
>> and the group approves the addition of the presentation to the agenda.
>>
>> Presentations shall be available to the group a minimum of 24
>> hours before a
>> motion can be made on any material contained within the presentation.
>>
>> Presentation Style Guidelines
>>
>> Failure to meet guidelines may result in a loss of requested presentation
>> time.
>> Presentations must be submitted in PDF format. Neither the chair nor the
>> Web Master will convert presentations to PDF format.
>> Presentations not in
>> PDF format will be returned.
>> Avoid graphic intensive backgrounds or other decorative graphics.
>> No animations, audio clips, video clips, etc.
>> Presentation should be less then 1.4 MB.
>> No marketing pitches, product pitches or corporate pitches.
>> No pricing, costs, ASPs, etc. are permitted. Relative costs,
>> ASPs, etc. are
>> permitted (i.e. option 1 is 3x the cost of option 2).
>> No company copyright or confidentiality statements. All
>> presentations are
>> posted to a publicly available web site. If the presentation is
>> not ready
>> for public disclosure, then it should not presented.
>> To support the web site search tool used by the IEEE P802.3 web site the
>> 'Document Information' fields of the PDF file must be completed
>> as follows:
>>
>> Title :- Title of presentation
>> Subject :- IEEE 802.3 10GBASE-T Study Group
>> Author :- Name(s) of author(s)
>> Document Information Fields
>> The 'Document Information' fields in a PDF file can be entered
>> as follows:
>>
>> Adobe Acrobat: Either use the menu options: 'File' -> 'Document Info' ->
>> 'General' or the shortcut CTRL-D.
>> Adobe PDFWriter: When the 'Save PDF File As' dialog appears hit the 'Edit
>> Document Info.' button, enter the information, and then hit the
>> 'OK' button.
>>
>> Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing you
>> all in Ottawa.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Steven B. Carlson
>> President
>> Chair, ESTA ACN Task Group
>> http://www.esta.org
>> Secretary, IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD Working Group
>> http://www.ieee802.org/3/
>> Chair, IEEE 802.3 RESG
>> High Speed Design, Inc.
>> 11929 NW Old Quarry Road
>> Portland, OR 97229
>> 503.626.4206
>> FAX 503.626.4206
>> scarlson@hspdesign.com