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

Re: Proposed Exec motion to forward 1000BASE-T to REVCOM

My position on this motion is based in part on a technical concern, 
and in part on a procedural concern.

The technical concern was summarized in the comment I sent along with
my vote on the motion.  I believe that a demonstration of technical
feasibility, in the form of a working implementation, is vital. I
have stated this position consistently and unambiguously for about a
year now.

The procedural concern is that we (802.3 and the SEC) allowed the
802.3ab PAR to be approved with a "waiver" of sorts on the 5 criteria,
specifically the 4th criterion, Technical Feasibility.

According to the 802.3 operating rules, the points which must be
addressed for the Technical Feasibility criterion are:

 4) Technical Feasibility   
    Demonstrated feasibility; reports - working models. 
    Proven technology, reasonable testing.
    Confidence in reliability.

When the 5 criteria for 802.3ab were approved,  these points were modified
to read:

 4) Technical Feasibility  
    Demonstrated feasibility  
    Proven technology  
    Confidence in reliability

Note the ommissions of the words "reports - working models" 
and "reasonable testing".

The argument in favor of this modification was that it was impractical to
expect anyone to committ the required resources to develop a prototype
implementation so far in advance of the standard.  Thus, we relied on
simulations and analysis to assess the technical feasibility. While I
believe that this was a reasonable approach at the PAR approval stage,
I had every expectation that implementations would be designed and built
by private interests in parallel with the standards development process,
and that information learned from the implementation experience would 
be presented and considered by the 802.3ab Task Force.

As recently as last November, 802.3 affirmed this expectation by adopting
the following motion, in response to my negative Working Group ballot:

  That the response to Howard Frazier's disapprove comment be modified to: 

  "While we appreciate your concern, we expect the existence proofs 
   to be available by Sponsor Ballot. Given the simulation results 
   and the design experience, it is appropriate to go forward to 
   Sponsor Ballot with the existing draft." 

   M: Ms. P. Thaler S: Mr. K. Daines 
   Y: 42 N: 0 A: 2 Approved.

My procedural concern, simply stated, is that the 802.3ab project has
failed to meet expectations.  

Howard Frazier