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

Re: [10GMMF] TP3 and RE: Dear comment contributors


I'm answering this email as I instructed Nick to be very brutal and reject all incomplete comments.

Your comment is important but it is incomplete. You yourself are requesting a very detailed study and discussion of the topic.  There are many other conflicting comments on the same subject.  I don't believe that the group can develop better specifications with true concensus for the stressors than the ones already in the document for or during the March meeting.  Therefore, the group needs to develop a plan to agree more accurate specifications for the stressors for the WG Ballot.  Given the number of comments (all of them rejected) in this area I expect a lot of energy will be put into resolving this particulr specification by May.

As Nick said, to respect the work of the people who submitted comments, I am planning to have a special session on the rejected comments.  The goal of the session are to ensure the group pays attention to them and develops plans to resolve them between March and May. It must be remembered that the ad hocs were very, very active. I think people needed to catch their breath after getting the draft complete in January. I would be very, very surprised if you needed a motion at the meeting to have others agree to make contributions in this area between March and May.

To go to WG ballot we need a complete draft not an absolutely perfect or correct draft.  The draft is complete - some specifications and tests need fine tuning.  Some more simulations need to be done.  This is quite normal at this stage of the process.

In my opinion, D1.1 is actually ready for Working Group Ballot.  I assume the group agrees since it voted unanimously to forwarded it for preview to IEEE 802.3.  IEEE 802.3 expects to see every change to the document as part of my report to the closing Plenary.  This means that Nick and I must be able to make all changes on Wednesday evening.  The changes had better be simple, mechanical in nature and limited in number.  To enable the desire of the group I have on many occasions informed it that in the March draft review cycle it could expect me (and under my instruction) Nick to reject all comments that were incomplete or vague.  I have also informed the group that if it really wants to go to Working Group Ballot out of the March meeting then it must be very disciplined and make only a few, very precise changes to the draft.  For IEEE 802.3 to allow us to go to WG ballot rough rules-of-thumb would be as follows:

1) D1.2 should have many pages of the draft per D1.1.
2) Pages with edits should have only a few lines or table entries changed.
3) We should give priority to feedback from the IEEE 802.3 pre-viewers not in our group, after all they are our masters.
4) We should do nothing that might reduce the consensus on D1.1. within LRM.
5) Complex changes should be kept for WG Ballot.

Additionally, time management will be a particular problem at the March meeting.  I will advise the group that it must be pragmatic and only make changes that can be agreed upon quickly.   In comment review if we get bogged down I will ask the commenter to withdraw the comment for resubmission at Working Group Ballot.  Editorial comments will be left until the end and will be dropped if we run out of time.  In my experience of IEEE 802.3 these are standard procedures for the review cycle leading up to WG ballot.

None of the above should imply that I or Nick think that any comments are poor, undesired or should be ignored.  All feedback on the draft and related models is very welcome.  My advice to the group is become familiar with the all the comments marked "Rejected by Editor" and to take them seriously.  However, some may involve more effort than a simple discussion at the meeting.  They may require the group to accept that there is still major work to do to get some of the details absolutely right.  Rather than waste precious time attempting to resolve that class of comment at the meeting we should devote the time to understanding them and planning the work to resolve them for WG Ballot.  As you say this may involve reinvigorating the ad hocs.

For this process to work the LRM group has to have integrity, trust and discipline.  It must be sincere and united in its stated desire to go to WG Ballot out of the March meeting.  I am assuming the group has integrity and will act in accordance with the instructions it gave me in terms of its timeline and vote to forward D1.1 to IEEE 802.3 for preview.


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Lingle, Jr, Robert
Sent: 07 March 2005 20:19
Subject: [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