Hi Marek,
This is a good catch and a good suggestion. But the change may be beyond a simple editorial fix. I suggest we re-open the comment during the meeting today, and modify the proposed response to add your suggestion.
Glen
From: Marek Hajduczenia <mxhajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 6:47 AM
To: stds-1904-4-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Glen Kramer' <glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Curtis (CableLabs) <c.knittle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: D0.3, comment #4 resolution
Good morning,
While looking at the resolution of comment #4 we addressed last night, i.e.,
I noticed we have some additional cleanup to do, i.e., Figure 5-3 title is “ONU architecture with single L-ONU (sL-ONU)”, but right now it makes little sense to use the sL-ONU term altogether. There are just two instances right now (figure title and list of acronyms), so my recommendation would be to nuke both of these instances and not add to complexity. It is a small update to the comment, but at least it would eliminate one unnecessary acronym.
Regards
Marek