Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!apple!amdahl!amdcad!ncpjmw
From: ncpjmw@amdcad.AMD.COM (Mike Wincn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Twisted Pair Ether query
Message-ID: <26755@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 14 Aug 89 16:49:49 GMT
References: <507@oblio.UUCP> <2230020@hprnd.HP.COM> <692@mtunh.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: ncpjmw@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Wincn)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 49

In article <692@mtunh.ATT.COM> mkd@mtunh.ATT.COM (Mark Darby) writes:
>10BASE-T is a task force under the auspices of IEEE 802.3, drafting a 
>standard for 10Mb/s baseband transmission over twisted pair wire. The 
>10BASE-T draft was recently voted upon by IEEE 802.3 voting members and
>failed by a significant margin (75% ratio of yes votes to yes+no votes is
>required for approval, actual ratio obtained was about 59%). Over 600
>comments were received from voters which must be addressed, however
>most of these were editorial comments and general specmanship issues.

Your description makes it sound as if 802.3 first approved and then rescinded
the 10BASE-T draft, when what actually happened was that it was overwhelmingly
APPROVED for letter ballot, and ballot comments came in at 59% as you point 
out.

It should be mentioned that the ballot process allows three possible responses:
Approve, Approve with Comment, and Disapprove, and it is the ratio of 
disapproves to approves that count.  Further, many of the disapproves were  
of an editorial nature - that is, the voter's comments had nothing to do
with feasability or functionality, but with description instead.  An example
that comes to mind is 'differential input voltage' rather than 'differential
voltage' or '...the output voltage is 2.2v peak' rather than '.. peak voltage
is 2.2v'.

It is believed that many of the 'disapprove' comments will be converted to 
'approve' with an editorial pass.

It should also be pointed out that many of the comments were duplicates,
and that while resolving all comments is not a trivial task, it will not
be nearly as difficult as an attempt to resolve 600 _unique_ responses.

Another point you failed to mention is that we've not seen any 'show stoppers'
- i.e. issues that would require complete rewrite/reballot - and it is thus  
presumed that the task remaining is well-defined and 'short term'.  
An implication of this is that end users run _lower_ risk as a date to 
confirmation ballot draws near, since OEMs will have already incorporated
the most recent updates in their products.  

>The new schedule of target dates for 10BASE-T includes a second letter ballot
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, the goal is a 'confirmation ballot', which is very different.  The
ability to realize that goal depends on how much progress the Task Force can
make before November.

>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark K. Darby

Mike Wincn
ncpjmw@amdcad.AMD.COM
(408) 749-3156