| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Paul, I am forwarding this to EC reflector on behalf of Howard and the Study Group. Steve From: Howard Frazier [mailto:hfrazier@broadcom.com]
The IEEE 802.3 EPoC PHY Study Group considered several different
proposals for the scope statement in the PAR. Some had a broad scope while others had a very narrow scope. Our attempts to
narrow the scope led to concerns that potentially beneficial options
would be precluded. We settled on the statement contained in the
draft PAR as the best way of defining what the Task Force must do,
while leaving the Task Force enough freedom to define the optimal solution.
We believe that the set of project objectives provides sufficient limits on
the scope of the work to limit the development time of the standard to
the minimum possible. From: Shellhammer, Steve
[mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of paul nikolich Howard, Thanks for the response. I appreciate the SG/WG uses the Project Objectives to define the operational characteristics of the project, and that partially addresses my concern, as there are
a good set of quantitative requirements in the objective. However, you didn't quite answer my question: "...I would like to ask if the WG at least considered opportunities to narrow the scope and potentially reduce the development time, and what was the rationale for settling on the current
scope?" Please respond to the question. Your perspective as SG Chair will be sufficient for my purposes (i.e., I don't expect the SG or WG to have to vote on a response) because I know you as
the SG Chair will provide a reasonable approximation of the SG/WG's perspective. Regards, --Paul From: John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@FORCE10LABS.COM>
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. |