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

Re: [802.3_10SPE] Announcement IEEE P802.3cg Draft 1.4 Task Force Review! - closes June 27th

All – it seems I made 2 mistakes yesterday.  Not only did I forget to include Gergely in the thanks, but I also messed up the link to the private area.  It is

not https://...

If you try to click on the https link, you won’t get there…



From: George Zimmerman
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:28 PM
To: STDS-802-3-10SPE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Announcement IEEE P802.3cg Draft 1.4 Task Force Review! - closes June 27th


All –

Oh no, they did it again…

Valerie Maguire and her editorial team have once again worked hard and fast and now, Draft 1.3 is ready 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 1.3, closing on June 17, 2018 anywhere on earth.  

With your cooperation, the comment database with proposed resolutions ready for circulation by JUNE 27th.


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 1.1. 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.


This is the same draft which will be pre-circulated to the working group for preview because we are trying to get to working group ballot this meeting.   I believe it is achievable, but it will be up to you for us to get there.  We still have changes to make - we have at least the OAM issue to settle, and need to resolve all of the Editor’s notes that say “to be removed before draft 2.0” or “to be removed prior to Working Group ballot”.  Additionally, you should take care that there are no sections missing content or hanging ‘to do’/’commenters are asked to review’ items in the text when you’re done with your review.


We need to be ‘good enough’ at this point.  The goal of Task Force review is “Technically Complete”.  Does it hang together technically, even if not perfect or perfectly verified.  We want to get to Working Group Ballot, which is the “Checking” phase of the project – do we have it editorially and technically correct.


So, ask yourself if a change is needed this time, or if it can wait until initial Working Group ballot.  If it isn’t needed for technical completeness (particularly if it is minor text clean up), please consider waiting.  We will have to explain all changes made to draft 1.3 to the working group, and we have some areas we KNOW are necessary to reach technical completeness.


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 RESOLVING YOUR COMMENT INVOLVES A PRESENTATION – please send a draft to the editorial team with your comments – that way we know what you are suggesting and can recommend proposed resolutions. 



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.

President & Principal

CME Consulting, Inc.

Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications




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