RE: [10GBASE-CX4] Sponsor Ballot Status - Update on Sacramento Meeting - Call for Presentations
There was a bug in my comment #86. I misquoted the current draft and should have written:
In order to form a complete ***Physical Layer***, the PMD shall be integrated with the appropriate physical sublayers (see Table 54-1) and with the management functions which are optionally accessible through the Management Interface defined in Clause 45, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
In order to form a complete PHY (physical layer device), a PMD is combined with the appropriate sublayers (see Table 54-1), and with the management functions which are optionally accessible through the management interface defined in Clause 45, or equivalent.
I think this means that PICS items XGE, XGXS and PCS can go. And I suppose the title to table 54-1 should be changed from '... physical layer clauses' to '... PHY (physical layer device) clauses'."
Changing "Physical Layer" to "PHY (physical layer device)" because the former includes the RS and there's no particular reason to bring the RS into this paragraph.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 24 September 2003 17:59
> To: email@example.com; stds-802-3-10GBCX4@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [10GBASE-CX4] Sponsor Ballot Status - Update on
> Sacramento Meeting - Call for Presentations
> 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) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> 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
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/ak/public/comments/d50/index.html 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
> 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