Re: [802SEC] P802.3av PAR for July consideration
Roger:
I'll offer your suggestion to 802.3 also. We are very clear within
802.3, as is the SASB, that the base document always includes all
approved amendments and corrigenda. After all, all amendments and
corrigenda state that they are "part of IEEE Std 802.3-20xx" (with the
standard reference adapted of course).
Initiation of invitation is the correct point in time to reference
rather than the ballot.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:36 PM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] P802.3av PAR for July consideration
Bob,
Regarding your Point 1, you might consider amending your proposed
text in Item 7.4. That's because the "IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD WORKING
GUIDE FOR THE PROJECT AUTHORIZATION REQUEST (PAR) FORM":
http://standards.ieee.org/guides/par/parinstruction.html
has a slightly different definition of the interpretation of an
unspecified year:
"Note: If the year is left blank, the document authorized by this PAR
shall be considered to be a modification of the approved base
standard and all of its approved amendments and corrigenda that
exists at the initiation of the ballot invitations."
You might considered using this text (or a grammatically correct
version of it).
Roger
At 01:22 PM -0700 06/06/12, Grow, Bob wrote:
>Colleagues:
>
>Please find following the URLs for the PAR documents for P802.3av,
>an amendment to IEEE Std 802.3 for: Physical Layer Specifications and
>Management Parameters for 10Gb/s Passive Optical Networks.
>
>
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/10GEPON_study/public/may06/10gepon_PAR.pdf
>http://www.ieee802.org/3/10GEPON_study/public/may06/10gepon_5criteria.p
df
>
>In accordance with the LMSC procedure for PARS requirement to
>provide the status of the PAR, the PAR (with the below exceptions)
>and Five Criteria documents are as approved by the 10 Gb/s EPON
>Study Group. These two documents have not yet been approved by IEEE
>802.3 (as they are the output of a May interim SG meeting).
>
>We have also encountered two problems with the now mandatory on-line
>PAR form, that may have corollaries for other WGs attempting to
>complete PAR forms for July:
>
>1. The current form does not allow you to leave the year on a
>standard blank. The NesCom convention prior to the current on-line
>PAR form was that leaving the year blank indicated that the
>amendment would apply to the then current standard. In this case,
>we do expect to have to revise the base standard before the target
>completion date of this amendment. This was discussed at last
>week's NesCom meeting, and they will be developing new NesCom
>convention language to continue to provide an option to having to
>submit a modified PAR to only change the year of the base standard.
>Based on those NesCom discussions, I will recommend to 802.3 (and
>any other WGs facing the same issue) that pending the approval of
>the new convention language, that text be added to Item 7.4
>indicating that "The project will amend the then current revision of
>IEEE Std 802.3 at the time the amendment enters Sponsor ballot".
>
>2. The text approved in May by the 10 Gb/s EPON Study Group also
>differs slightly from that presented in Item 5.5. The approved
>version of this PAR item included a bulleted list. Unknown at the
>time of our SG meeting, even though one can type in this kind of
>formatting, it is removed when the PAR page is saved. Consequently,
>slight grammar changes may be adopted to improve the flow of this
>text recognizing this form limitation.
>
>Bob Grow
>Chair, IEEE 802.3
>bob.grow@ieee.org
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.