RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed responses
IMHO, you seem to be on a quest to bring the entire IEEE 802.3 document "up
to standard." Doing this in the context of this single project is not
IMHO, as this is a supplement to the existing document, consistency with the
existing documentation must necessarily trump the IEEE style guide when
conflicts are identified.
Were IEEE P802.3ah (or any other project) to modify the style of a sub
portion of the IEEE 802.3 standard in a way that is inconsistent with the
existing document that has the potential of reducing readability, adding
confusion, and potentially even creating misunderstanding -- all of which
are inherently in conflict with the purposes of creating a standard -- I
would write a TR against it.
Please note that IEEE 802.17 is not a supplemental standard.
If the IEEE Standards Board, editorial staff, of anyone else desires to
create a project and expend the effort to clean up all 3000 some pages of
the entire IEEE 802.3 standard simultaneously, I would strongly commend it.
p.s. What I write here in no way excuses thoughtless, unsubstantiated
responses. In point of fact, any rejection should be extremely well
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of David V
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:43 AM
> To: Wael William Diab
> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
> proposed responses
> It is sadening to see that the 802.3 editors are willing to blow off
> valid notation-inconsistency comments with a step-and-repeat answer:
> IEEE 802.3ah is an ammendment to 802.3.
> The style is consistant with the 802.3 style and
> has been reviewed by the IEEE Staff Editor.
> You should be aware that, in all cases, this notation is inconsistent
> with portions of the 802.3 draft and/or the IEEE style manual. While I
> understand that this casual disregard of valid comments is blessed at
> the highest level of your working group (I have saved their email),
> it will not (in my opinion) be blessed by the IEEE Standards board.
> When such comments were submitted during the IEEE 802.17 WG ballots,
> they were addressed with seriousness and a much improved document
> resulted. I'm disappointed that your group was not as receptive
> and (in fact) seems committed to sustaining bad editing practices
> as an excuse for timeliness to completion.
> This "quick and dirty" approach is unlikely to give you the timely
> completion that you desire. Deferring these issues to Sponsor ballot
> will only extend you completion time further, and delays for a
> Standard Board appeal and rewrite would be even worse.
> David V. James
> 3180 South Ct
> Palo Alto, CA 94306
> Home: +1.650.494.0926
> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
> Fax: +1.360.242.5508
> Base: email@example.com
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Wael William
> >> Diab
> >> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:36 AM
> >> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> >> Subject: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed
> >> responses
> >> Dear Members of the IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD Working Group
> >> and the IEEE 802.3ah EFM Task Force,
> >> Your 802.3ah editorial teams have produced suggested
> responses to the
> >> 1270 comments in our D2.0 comment database!
> >> A pdf with the comments and suggested responses can be
> downloaded from
> >> our comments page at:
> >> http://www.ieee802.org/3/efm/public/comments/
> >> My thanx to all the editorial teams, our editorial leads
> as well as our
> >> honorary comment editor, Brad, for all of their hard work.
> >> There is a fair amount of work and a significant number of
> comments for
> >> us to get through next week. So please try downloading and
> reviewing the
> >> proposed responses.
> >> I look forward to our meeting in Italy
> >> --
> >> Wael William Diab
> >> Editor-In-Chief, IEEE 802.3ah