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

[802.3_10SPE] Announcement of IEEE P802.3cg Draft 1.1 Task Force Review

All –

Valerie Maguire and her editorial team have worked hard and fast and have prepared Draft 1.1 for review.  As before, please review the draft and provide comments to the editorial team.  With this email I announce the start of Task force review of draft 1.1, closing on February 21, 2018 anywhere on earth.  Yes, we are kind of compressed here, but there isn’t much time between meetings and I commend our editorial team for getting this out a few days earlier than planned.


The draft can be found in the 802.3cg private area at: .  There are both “clean text” and “compare” versions of the document in the private area so that you can see what has changed since draft 1.0. PLEASE ONLY COMMENT ON THE ‘CLEAN TEXT’, not the compare file. If you need the password (and are participating in the standards process – getting this email by the reflector is evidence of that), then email me and I will make sure you get it.


Comments should be submitted either by the filemaker comment tool or the spreadsheet tool.  They are available at I personally recommend the spreadsheet tool as I have found it results in fewer commenter errors and you can see all your comments at once – but you may use either tool.  Manual comments, however, are discouraged.


My suggestion – Focus on technical completeness, as well as accuracy, but first make sure we have all the things in the draft that we need.  Clause 146 got a pretty good pass-through last time, but needs more eyes.  Clauses 147, 148 and the annexes need more attention too.  Particularly consider whether we’ve got the hooks in to support all the various options for 10BASE-T1S – half-duplex and full-duplex pt-to-pt, as well as half-duplex multidrop.  If you work with other participants, you may want to divide sections to work on.


Also, please know that if you plan on presenting presentations or proposals – PLEASE file a comment on the section of text that it would fit into (even if there is nothing there currently)  If you are uncertain as to where something might fit in, please let me know.  Our job has moved to completing the draft, and this will help us to do that.


I understand from Steve Carlson that we will have limited time in Rosemont, and we have lots of work to do, so we are going to work hard to make comment resolution efficient.  You can help by following the guidelines below.


Again, Thank you to our industrious editorial team: Valerie Maguire, Piergiorgio Beruto, Chris Diminico, Curtis Donahue and Jon Lewis.




Below are some important FAQs and guidelines:


Who can review the draft – Anyone.  Participation is by individual basis.


Scope of the review: The ENTIRE draft is still in scope.



Good commenting guidelines: See  where there are lots of good information.  It is most helpful if you:

-          Quote the offending text (or enough of it for us to find) in your comment, AND, say what the problem is.  Any explanation should go in the comment.

-          Give a specific change to the text in the proposed response.  Try not to say more than just what needs to be done.  If there is more than one possibility, give both and briefly say what makes the determination in your mind (for example, “if the proposed functionality is supposed to be P, then change “y” to “z”.  if the proposed functionality was supposed to be Q, then change “y” to “x”.  If you need formatting or graphics, then put them in another file (text – word or PDF, or powerpoint).  Remember, equations, italics, etc. don’t come through in the comment tool.  If you need a presentation to explain and present the solution, please flag that and give it a name in the proposed response – BUT, give your editors an idea of what you will be proposing.

-          Please focus on the technical completeness of our draft.  While pointing out obvious typos or errors is useful, editorially rewording text takes valuable task force time and likely will just get reworded again during working group ballot.  A useful rule is – if you can clearly understand what is meant, then others can too, but if there are 2 or more interpretations and you need ‘inside knowledge’ or have to guess to figure out what is meant, please go ahead and comment.

-          If you think there is an issue to discuss, flag that (in addition to providing your proposed resolution).  That will be a cue to your editors not to mark the comment “EZ”.


Voting and “Required” comments:  Task Force review is informal, there is no ballot or vote.  Therefore, there is NO POINT in marking your comments “required” or not.  They will all be considered equally.


George Zimmerman, Ph.D.

Chair, IEEE P802.3cg 10 Mb/s Single Twisted Pair Ethernet Task Force

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications



To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: