RE: [EFM] RE: [802.3] IEEE P802.3ah Draft 2.0: Comments with proposed responses
The proposed responses that Wael posted are just that, "proposed
responses". Given that the editorial staff has to formulate proposed
responses to over 1200 comments in less than a week, the step-and-repeat
answer is used on comments that are similar. Of critical importance to
the editors is the technical completeness of the specification, hence
the reason that during the comment resolution process the Task Force
focuses on responses to the TR comments first, T comments second and E
comments last. The reason for this order is that is important to
achieve a technically complete specification first before the
specification is wordsmithed and polished. Does this mean that there is
casual disregard for your comments? No, it does not. Ever comment is
considered by the Task Force, and the proposed responses are often
updated or altered.
From: David V James [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:43 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
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
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com
>> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Wael William
>> 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
>> 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
>> our comments page at:
>> My thanx to all the editorial teams, our editorial leads as well as
>> honorary comment editor, Brad, for all of their hard work.
>> There is a fair amount of work and a significant number of comments
>> us to get through next week. So please try downloading and reviewing
>> proposed responses.
>> I look forward to our meeting in Italy
>> Wael William Diab
>> Editor-In-Chief, IEEE 802.3ah