Re: Proposed motion for today

[Geoff Thompson <thompson@xxxxxxxx>]

Marek-

I would be careful about your response to comment #8
The format used in the draft was very carefully crafted quite a few years ago to allow local definitions of terms.
This was because the IEEE would sweep all definitions (verbatim) into what was then IEEE Std 100, "The Authoritative Dictionary of Terms and Definitions" (which was neither "authoritative" not a "dictionary" (rather, a glossary))
We developed this style so that the definition would clearly be contextual and wouldn't be judged as conflicting with other definitions.

I'm not clear whether the parenthetical reference form would be preserved or stripped when the definition gets transported over these days.  If the parenthetical reference gets stripped then the comment should be rejected and 802.3 should adhere to the fully textual form.

Best regards,

    Geoff Thompson

On 11/1/11 3:55 AM, Marek Hajduczenia wrote:

Dear all,

 

As part of the comment resolution process, I would like to bring the following motion to the attention of the TF during the meeting today.

 

Motion #X

Move to accept the proposed resolution to comments number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 26, 27, 36, 37, 38, 41 as posted in 3bf_1101_comments_proposed.pdf.

Moved by: Marek Hajduczenia

Seconded by: ???

 

If this motion is accepted, we will be done with most of the editorial comments, which I believe are non-controversial and will be left with very few (19 altogether) comments to consider.

 

In preparation for the meeting, please review the posted proposed responses and let me know whether any of the comments needs to be taken out of the motion text as suggested above

 

Kindest regards

 

Marek Hajduczenia, PhD

 

ZTE Portugal

Edifício Amoreiras Plaza,

Rua Carlos Alberto da Mota Pinto, nr. 9 - 6 A,

1070-374 Lisbon, Portugal

 

Office: +351 213 700 090
Fax: + 351 213 813 349
Mobile: +351 961 121 851 (Portugal)

Mobile: +1 571 225 2781 (USA)