Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[10GMMF] TP3 and RE: Dear comment contributors

I understand your need to move things along at the Atlanta meeting. I
understand your objection to comments without an exact change specified.
However there is a dilemma here that must be solved.
A problem with the TP3 stressed sensitivity test was raised on the reflector
a few weeks ago (see
John Ewen made a similar comment, which was also marked "PROPOSED REJECT." A
key figure in committee leadership has told me by personal email that he
agrees there is a finite equalizer issue that should be addressed,
especially w/r to heavy pre-cursor ISI.
A new set of specific IPR's that remove this deficiency are best generated
collaboratively by the TP3 group, using a common seive code that all agree
However TP3 has not met since Vancouver. Specific experts on the stressed
sensitivity test have expressed agreement/disagreement with the the
suggested deficiency neither on the reflector nor privately. There sieve
code is not a public tool, such as TP2 provided for TWDP.
There are many ways to address this, including posting a public sieve tool
and/or actively addressing the issue collaboratively. Perhaps a motion
directing TP3 to do so is better than a comment. Better still would be
voluntary active discussion of the topic.
Robert Lingle, Jr
Fiber Design and Development
OFS R&D, Atlanta, GA
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Nick Weiner []
        Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:41 AM
        To:;; 'Joe Gwinn';
'Petar Pepeljugoski'; 'Swanson, Steven E';; 'Sudeep
Bhoja'; 'Mike Dudek';; 'George, John (John)';
'Lingle, Jr, Robert (Robert)';;; 'Tom Lindsay'
        Subject: Dear comment contributors

        Dear IEEE 802.3aq Draft 1.1 comment contributors,
        I thought I'd write you a short note before we upload the comment
summary ...
        As I indicated in my email to the reflector, we are being very
strict this time about allowing only comments with precise suggested
remedies - i.e. precisely stated changes to the document. This note is just
to give you some advance warning that I am proposing rejection of all
comments that do not include precise remedies. They are mark "PROPOSED
REJECT. Suggested remedy not complete."
        To complete the formal process I will make a motion, to the Task
Force, that we reject all of these comments. I will not be inviting
"friendly amendments", in this case, to remove comments from the motion.
        David and I realize that they all represent strongly held opinions,
and David will be allocating an hour of time for presentation of these
rejected comments.
        Thanks you all for your contributions, and I look forward to seeing
you all in Atlanta,

Robert Lingle, Jr
Fiber Design and Development
OFS R&D, Atlanta, GA