|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Yesterday during some consensus calls, I noticed that there appears to be continuing, IMO, misconceptions about what is supposed to be done during the SG phase, which I believe is leading to miscommunications.
I suggest we take a step back and consider procedures. Why – because when all else fails, falling back on the procedures will help.
First, let’s remember that we a Study Group. What is the role of a study group? Per the IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules -
The normal function of a IEEE 802.3 Study Group (SG) is to draft a complete PAR and five criteria (see 7.2) and to gain approval for them at the WG, LMSC EC, IEEE-SA New Standards Committee (NesCom) and the IEEE Standards Board.
Why do I bring this up? Because I hear people going right to [relative] cost when discussing broad market potential. Personally, I think that discussion is diving into the total market issues, and not the function of the study group. However, per the process, what questions do we need to answer to respond to the BMP critters:
a) Broad sets of applicability
b) Multiple vendors and numerous users
c) Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations)
This does not mean we don’t need to consider technical feasibility or economic feasibility. There are other critters for that appropriately named. And let’s remember, we need to apply Boolean Logic to the Critters – we need to AND everything together. If we can’t answer all of these critters about an objective, then it should not be added.
So as a point of reference, I would suggest that we take a moment for level setting. The following are links to such presentations for critters and objectives that Hugh and I gave to Howard’s EPOC group at the last meeting.
And before everyone jumps on me about the process talk – let’s remember – it does work!