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

RE: [10GBASE-CX4] Sponsor Ballot Status - Update on Sacramento Meeting - Call for P resentations


I had planned on attending, but it looks like I may not be able to. 

You need to check the Comment Type designations remembering that the pull down menu for IEEE comment entry didn't give the option of Technical Required. Therefore, if the voter voted Disapprove and used the IEEE comment entry, the voter's technical comments have to be considered TR unless the voter clarifies the status. This doesn't seem to have been done in the comment type field for my comments (though the designater off to the right below comment number has TR in it).

My comment 170 was intended as a TR. Since there are shall statements with cable assembly and there is no formal definition (just figure 54-2), I guess 169 should be a TR as well. In checking that comment out, I just noticed that many places you use just "cable assembly" rather than the full term. It would be better to consistantly use the full term or to at a minimum put a statement with the first use of "cable assembly" that in this clause "cable assembly" means a twin axial cable assembly. 

I disagree with your rejection of 86. "integrated" is confusing and "combined" is much better. We have not in the past allowed consistancy to be an excuse for inaccurate or confusing language. Since this is a shall statement, it should be clear and integrated could be interpreted as meaning too much. It is unfortunately true that we sometimes miss small imperfections when reviewing 500 page documents that we catch in smaller specs reusing the language. 


-----Original Message-----
From: DOVE,DANIEL J (HP-Roseville,ex1) []
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:40 AM
To: 10GBASE-CX4 (E-mail)
Subject: [10GBASE-CX4] Sponsor Ballot Status - Update on Sacramento
Meeting - Call for P resentations

Hello Task Force Members,

As you may note by the subject line, we are running hard and fast.

First off, the Sponsor Ballot of D5.0 failed to close on schedule because we
did not meet the IEEE-SA 75% return rate requirement. We were two ballots
short on Sunday at 12pm EST. As a result, IEEE-SA reopened the ballot and we
are now officially meeting that requirement. The ballot will close again
tonight at 12pm EST. Thanks to those of you who diligently met your
responsibility to review and ballot on time. For the two task force members
who did not, I am thinking of a few bars in Sacramento that can help you to
ease your guilt... and the group's thirst for a round of drinks! :)

Secondly, this is a reminder that we are meeting in Sacramento this Thursday
and Friday. *PLEASE* be there promptly at 8:00am so that we can start
business on time. Comments have been posted onto the web at so you can
download them and start thinking of resolutions. Howard has been working
feverishly to get these comments processed. He deserves a handshake when you
get the chance, so please be sure to thank him personally for his

Finally, if you have a presentation to address the resolution of a comment,
please contact me as soon as possible. I would like to finalize an agenda
and provide that to our membership as soon as possible. Please check the
website daily (or more often) for updates as it will be live for the next
few days. It is our intent to resolve all comments at this meeting and get
to recirculation by next week. This means we will have to be very focused,
and make changes to the document only where absolutely necessary, and make
them with precision. Your expertise is highly essential to this objective.

Sacramento is a nice place and the weather is expected to be absolutely
perfect. Warm enough at night and cool enough during the day for casual
wear. I look forward to seeing you here.


Dan Dove
Chair, 802.3ak Task Force
Principal Engineer, LAN PHY Technology     
hp ProCurve Networking Business
8000 Foothills Blvd. MS 5555
Roseville, CA 95747-5555
Phone: 916 785 4187
Fax  : 916 785 1815