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

New Proposals vs. Last Feature

As indicated by Ben Brown's note (, we are at the stage where a level of detail needs to understood regarding the schedule and the meaning of "Last New Proposal (July '00)" and "Last Feature (Nov '00, Draft 2)."
Clearly, a "Proposal" meant something BIG and a "Feature" meant something -- relatively speaking -- small. The line was always intended to be slightly vague, thereby allowing us some latitude to make progress without arbitrary definitions getting in the way. Fortunate, no? [rhetorical question, please don't respond).  When we adopted the schedule, I think that it is reasonable to assume that everyone understood the tie between "Last New Proposal" and "Adopt Core Proposal."
As chair, my read is this:
1. The first and prime objective is to make progress and move the project along at optimal speed.
2. For those areas where we have adopted a specific proposal to solve one or more of our objectives, the "Last New Proposal" rule is in effect. These are locked down.
3. There is no reason to hold the committee to this for the MMF objectives. If someone can come up with a "New Proposal" that can resolve these still-open-objectives, it would be absurd to not hear it. Similarly, if the resolution to the these MMF objectives impacts the existing "Core Proposal," we will have to resolve this also. This could require us to accept additional "New Proposals."
4. More likely (regarding 3., above), we can expect to see "New Features" to existing PMD proposals.
Now, more specific to Ben's question:
5. If someone asked me to put a presentation on the agenda for September which was an "Existing Proposal (meaning we had heard this before)" with or without "New Features," and said Proposal had no counterpart in the baseline proposal, I would be hard spent to turn it down. LSS fits into this category.
6. Similarly, Ben's request for a "New Feature" to the "Baseline Proposal" which would satisfy the interest in Break-Link and Remote-Fault also seems to be quite reasonable.
If I believe that the committee will be interested in hearing a Proposal, I will likely put it on the agenda. This will clearly be a subjective decision. In either case (meaning accepted or denied), the committee will have the chance to modify the agenda at the September meeting. This will be a procedural vote, of course.
In the meantime, let us focus on the solutions to the problems/issues/voids/etc.
If I have written this even the least bit well, you should be able to answer all but one of the following questions easily [Hints included]:
a) Will you accept presentations on 850 nm Serial, 850 nm WWDM, and 1310 nm? [YES!!!]
b) Will you accept presentations on LSS? [Yes]
c) Will you accept presentations on MAC rate control? [No]
d) Will you accept presentations for a more efficient SONET framing mechanism? [No]
e) Will you accept presentations on MB810? [Hmmmmm. Does it help solve the MMF objectives?]

Jonathan Thatcher,
Chair, IEEE 802.3ae (10 Gigabit Ethernet)
Principal Engineer, World Wide Packets
PO BOX 141719, Suite B; 12720 E. Nora, Spokane, WA 99214
509-242-9000 X228; Fax 509-242-9001; jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx