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

RE: [802.3af] Late comment


You are correct.
I believe that the committee accepted the late comment as:

        "Worthy of consideration and inclusion into the comment database for 4.0"

That was all that I was looking for at the time.
I also believe that the status of this particular comment is that it has not yet been actually considered by the Comment Resolution Group.

The purpose of my message was so that the comment had a paper trail and would actually get put into the comment database (with fair warning) and be up for formal resolution at the Santa Clara meeting.

Thanks for putting it where it belongs.

more below..

At 09:11 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, you wrote:

My 2 cents -

In reply to the assertion that the committee agree there was a problem,
that is not how I remember it.  I remember that the committee agreed it was
worth further consideration and would agree to adding a late comment to
facilitate the inquiry.  Was there a comment added that was accepted or
accepted in principle that I don't remember?

If we choose to go down the path to specifying ground, there is impact to
clauses 14, 25, and 40 at a minimum, I would suggest that we may as well
open up clauses 9 and 27 as well and straighten out those.  I would ask
that proposed change text be prepared and circulated prior to the meeting
at Cisco.

Are we talking specifying a common or ground?

I hope all that I am talking about is specifying which end of the primary power is the common.