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

IEEE 802.3auDTE Power Isolation Corrigendum Comment Response Rebu ttal

Greetings to those interested in making improvements to the IEEE802.3

Below is a brief email exchange history between David and myself regarding
comments I made on IEEE 802.3au (IEEE P802.3-2005/Cor 1) D1.0.

I have attached my rebuttal to the comment responses made by the interim
committee reviewing the comments.  This reflector message in accommodation
of David's request.  Due to personal family medical priorities, I was not
able to be in my office last week as I had planned.

Many concerned and conscientious members of the IEEE802.3 body provided
comments, good and helpful comments, on the corrigendum ballot text to aid
in the improvement and clarification of the standard.  I do not take lightly
the casual rejection of good and helpful contributions to an effort to
clarify an area of the standard that has been the topic of many
interpretation requests.  The IEEE802.3 standard is indeed in need of
clarification, correction, and consistency as a whole in the area of
isolation and closely related environmental considerations and grounding.

I believe the corrigendum falls short of its PAR objective and intent,
"Current specifications are confusing to implementers, and consequently we
are receiving a significant number of interpretation requests on isolation,
and this would be reduced with improved text."

I ask those interested to review the PAR, the balloted corrigendum text, the
comments and interim committee responses, and my rebuttal and consider the
fact that the ballot passed...overwhelmingly!

I hope my rebuttal is a good read.

Best Regards to all,

Robert Busse

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:42 AM
To: Robert Busse
Subject: RE: Required comments against IEEE 802.3auDTE Power Isolation
cor rigendum

Hi Robert,

Just wanted to say thank you for your reply. As I know you are aware the 
comment responses, as well as the changes to the draft agreed, at the 
meeting a couple of weeks ago cannot be changed at this point - and that 
of course I cannot speak for the group.

Regardless of this I personally would still like to continue a dialogue 
with you over your concerns and hopefully you comment by comment responses 
will help with this. As part of that I would like to ask if it is okay 
when I reply to them to CC others who I think would be interested and 
would also like to comment - I wouldn't do this without your okay so I 
thought I should check with you first. What I am trying to achieve with 
this is a level of off-line consensus building before the next meeting - 
of course I'd be more that happy if you wanted to send your comment by 
comment responses to the Task Force e-mail reflector - everybody could 
then participate and/or observe as they see fit.

Thanks and regards,

Robert Busse <> wrote on 23/01/2006 13:38:54:

> David,

> Thank you for the message.

> I do feel strongly that the isolation text in the IEEE802.3 standard is
> inconsistent, incomplete, and confusing and has been for some time and 
> be highlighted, exposed, and corrected.  The corrigendum effort provides
> such an opportunity and that is why resolution to my comments is 
> If the isolation text is not made consistent with this effort, a barrage 
> maintenance and interpretation requests should be forthcoming to force 
> issue until it is remedied or IEEE802.3 copper segments will continue to 
> further corrupted.

> I was disappointed not to be able to attend the interim meeting but my
> responsibilities required I be elsewhere.  I do plan on participating in 
> conference call on 2/16.

> I will respond comment by comment to you later this week as I have
> commitments until then and a few short phrases do not suffice.

> Clearly, I am disappointed with the response to all my comments except
> perhaps #5.  Even my tentatively accepted comment, #6, was not accepted 
> total with regard to 'accessible external conductors'.

> I do indeed feel that the goal of the PAR is not being satisfied by the
> corrigendum as it is currently written and furthermore the response to 
> rejection of my comments based on disjoint and inconsistent logic 
> exemplifies the discontinuity, confusion, and obfuscation of the 
> requirement in the IEEE802.3 standard.

> I am not asking for anything other than consistency and clarification in 
> standard for all isolation text for the benefit of those implementing 
> standard as the PAR indicates.  If the membership determines otherwise 
> it will become obvious that IEEE802.3 desires to keep the isolation
> requirement subjective.

> Best Regards,

> Robert Busse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:25 AM
> To: Robert Busse
> Cc: McCormack, Michael
> Subject: Required comments against IEEE 802.3auDTE Power Isolation
> corrigendum

> Hi Robert,

> Thank you for your comments against IEEE 802.3au (IEEE Std 
> 1) DTE Power Isolation corrigendum. The Task Force met last week to
> consider the comments submitted and the responses can be found at the 


> Since you indicated that five of your comments were 'required' I wonder 
> you could inform me, on a comment by comment basis, if the response
> satisfy you. If the response to a particular comment does satisfy you 
> comment will not need to included in the recirculation package. If 
> you indicate the response to a particular comment does not satisfy you, 
> if you don't have time to respond, as the default, the comment will be
> included in the recirculation package.

> Best regards,
> David Law

Comment Response Rebuttal-1.pdf