|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I review the draft 1.1 and have some comments from my side. See Excel list.
For the MDI discussion I wish to show a presentation about a possible solution based on a running IEC SC48B standatization projects. I send you this presentation up to tomorrow.
Thanks for your support in advance
An very nice greetings
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
The future of miniaturised Ethernet
Please visit http://www.harting.com/en/little-giants/
HARTING Electronics GmbH, Marienwerderstraße 3, D-32339 Espelkamp; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Bad Oeynhausen; Register-Nr.: HRB 8808; Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Kfm. Edgar-Peter Düning, Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Ing. Ralf Martin Klein, Dipl.-Ing. Uwe Gräff, Dipl.-Ing. (FH), Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Ing. (FH) Andreas Conrad
Since I may not be available for our ad hoc tomorrow, I wanted to make a few remarks by reflector.
We have now entered the task force review stage. While working-group ballot and sponsor ballot are governed by fairly formal rules on recirculation times and scopes, the task force review is less regulated. You should see it as an opportunity to get used to the ballot process if it is new to you.
As Chair, I’d like to see the group focused, and I HIGHLY recommend using the spreadsheet comment tool. This way we can progress our work by reviewing solutions we’ve approved and corresponding text, and by providing solutions to problems we find.
I expect that the process will begin soon, with the posting of d1p0 to the private area.
- At that time, it will be announced the posting with something like the following:
o Your intrepid editorial team, led by Valerie Maguire has completed a draft 1.0 of 802.3cg for Task Force review. To get you used to the comment process, we will be gathering comments on the draft using the IEEE 802.3 comment tools. You may find two tools at http://www.ieee802.org/3/WG_tools/index.html (a filemaker tool, and the recommended ‘comment entry spreadsheet’ tool). The spreadsheet tool has you fill in the following fields:
Please ignore the “Must be satisfied” field for now. There are no ‘required’ comments in task force review. Category can be Technical, Editorial, or General. It is up to you to determine which category your comment falls into. The important thing is to identify where the text is, if possible, quote the text that needs revision in your comment area, and write a proposed change. If the change is long enough or complex enough that you need to make a presentation with technical backup, please note that in the proposed change field as well as at least a short description of your proposal.
- Please send your comment spreadsheets to your editor (Valerie Maguire) and the Chair (George Zimmerman) by xxxx ?
Valerie will give you her best estimates of the timeframes. PLEASE, respect her request for when to get comments in.
The meetings will proceed best when our editorial team has had a chance to review and consider the comments and provide suggested responses.
For the simple ones (typos, etc.) we’ll classify comments as ‘EZ’ or into technical buckets. In my mind, ‘EZ’ is a clear typo, technical or editorial error where the solution is obvious. I almost never do a proposed reject in an EZ comment unless it’s an obvious mess up on the commenters part.
When an issue is technical and more involved, I expect we’ll get a lot of presentations in the remedies. Please indicate that in your comments and try to present and build consensus in advance. Remember to use the reflector and our ad hocs.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1