Re: Proposed Exec motion to forward 1000BASE-T to REVCOM
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Proposed Exec motion to forward 1000BASE-T to REVCOM
- From: Howard Frazier <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
My position on this motion is based in part on a technical concern,
and in part on a procedural concern.
The technical concern was summarized in the comment I sent along with
my vote on the motion. I believe that a demonstration of technical
feasibility, in the form of a working implementation, is vital. I
have stated this position consistently and unambiguously for about a
The procedural concern is that we (802.3 and the SEC) allowed the
802.3ab PAR to be approved with a "waiver" of sorts on the 5 criteria,
specifically the 4th criterion, Technical Feasibility.
According to the 802.3 operating rules, the points which must be
addressed for the Technical Feasibility criterion are:
4) Technical Feasibility
Demonstrated feasibility; reports - working models.
Proven technology, reasonable testing.
Confidence in reliability.
When the 5 criteria for 802.3ab were approved, these points were modified
4) Technical Feasibility
Confidence in reliability
Note the ommissions of the words "reports - working models"
and "reasonable testing".
The argument in favor of this modification was that it was impractical to
expect anyone to committ the required resources to develop a prototype
implementation so far in advance of the standard. Thus, we relied on
simulations and analysis to assess the technical feasibility. While I
believe that this was a reasonable approach at the PAR approval stage,
I had every expectation that implementations would be designed and built
by private interests in parallel with the standards development process,
and that information learned from the implementation experience would
be presented and considered by the 802.3ab Task Force.
As recently as last November, 802.3 affirmed this expectation by adopting
the following motion, in response to my negative Working Group ballot:
That the response to Howard Frazier's disapprove comment be modified to:
"While we appreciate your concern, we expect the existence proofs
to be available by Sponsor Ballot. Given the simulation results
and the design experience, it is appropriate to go forward to
Sponsor Ballot with the existing draft."
M: Ms. P. Thaler S: Mr. K. Daines
Y: 42 N: 0 A: 2 Approved.
My procedural concern, simply stated, is that the 802.3ab project has
failed to meet expectations.