RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed responses
I agree with you only in part.
For example, on the comments regarding capitalization - capitalization styles have changed in IEEE over the nearly 20 years since the original 802.3 was published. Also, over time, we have also gotten more aware of the importance of conventions and consistancy in understanding the standards. We have felt that it was not worth the effort and risk of unintended changes to apply this retroactively to the original clauses. It makes sense to keep usages of existing terms and in existing clauses consistant with what is already there. If we wanted to do a major overhaul to bringg the existing clauses up to snuff, this should be done in a revision and not as part of an amendment. Personally, I don't think the benefit would be worth the effort.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect new clauses to follow the conventions established in the existing document (especially those adopted in 10BASE-T and later). For instance, there should be a consistant style for types such as variable names, state names, etc. I believe we have been doing this in addtitions such as 802.3ae though not with the same granularity that David requested (e.g. we use the same style for constants and variables). It would also be reasonable to craft an addition to a Notation section to describe the name style conventions so that future editors and readers don't have to derive it by looking at the examples.
I also notice that David's comment 448 was rejected. It makes a valid request - that we use a consistant notation for hex and binary. The particular solution in his suggested remedy is too inconsistant with our existing document so we should not accept that resolution, but we should use a clear and consistant notation. For hex, we have adopted a "0x" prefix to denote hex and that should be consistantly used. We documented that convention in IEEE 802.3ae 1.2.5.
On binary numbers, we don't have much of a convention. Often they are used where the context is clear (e.g. in a figure showing the value of a byte field or in a code table showing 8B/10B values). In other places the value is specifically identified as binary (e.g. "the binary value xxxxx" or "xxxxx binary"). It would be reasonable to decide on a convention for the future, document it, and apply it to new clauses.
From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:21 AM
To: 'David V James'
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; 'Wael William Diab'
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of David V
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:43 AM
> To: Wael William Diab
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: email@example.com
> >> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Wael William
> >> Diab
> >> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:36 AM
> >> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> 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