Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
Tom, thank you for your authoritative answer on this one.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Alexander" <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Robert D. Love" <rdlove@xxxxxxxx>; "Blakey, Sam" <Sam.Blakey@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "'RPRWG'" <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
>
> Sam, Bob,
>
> The IEEE Standards Style Manual is quite explicit on the usage of "shall",
> "should", "may", and "can"
> (plus the need to avoid ambiguity by not using other words with similar
> meaning in normative text). I
> quote:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> 13.1 Shall, should, may, and can
> The word shall is used to indicate mandatory requirements strictly o be
> followed in order to conform to he
> standard and from which no deviation is permitted (shall equals is
required
> to).The use of the word must is
> deprecated and shall not be used when stating mandatory requirements; must
> is used only to describe
> unavoidable situations.The use of the word will is deprecated and shall
not
> be used when stating mandatory
> requirements; will is only used in statements of fact.
> The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities one
is
> recommended as particularly suit-
> able, without mentioning or excluding others; or that a certain course of
> action is preferred but not necessar-
> ily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain course of action is
> deprecated but not prohibited (should
> equals is recommended that).
> The word may is used to indicate a course of action permissible within the
> limits of the standard (may equals
> is permitted).
> The word can is used for statements of possibility and capability,whether
> material, physical, or causal (can
> equals is able to).
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> IEEE 802 practice has also, quite recently, become fairly explicit with
> regard to PICS. In general, every
> single instance of the word "shall" MUST be accompanied by a PICS entry.
> Every single PICS entry
> MUST be connected to a "shall" in the normative text. Every single use of
> the word "may" in normative
> text MUST have a corresponding optional PICS entry. Having been dinged
many
> times on this subject
> during ballot, I plan to enforce this rule fairly strictly. (If I don't,
all
> that will happen is that the other groups
> joining us during Sponsor Ballot will do it for me.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Tom Alexander
> Chief Editor, P802.17
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert D. Love" <rdlove@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Blakey, Sam" <Sam.Blakey@xxxxxxx>; "'Kshitij Kumar'"
> <kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>; "'RPRWG'"
> <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
>
>
> >
> > Sam, there is no precise rule about the relationship between PICS and
> > SHALLs, except to say that each SHALL really needs to be reflected in
some
> > PICS. "May" "Should" "Will" and "Can" are not generally represented in
> > PICS. In general we try to limit the use of "Will" and "Should" because
> > they tend to create ambiguity.
> >
> > In an ideal world, all PICS would relate back to SHALLs. However, what
is
> > really needed is to have the PICS comprehensively specify all that is
> > required in the conformant product, so that when a product conforms to
the
> > PICS it implements the algorithms of the standard as required.
> >
> > The PICS is absolutely crucial because it is the PICS against which all
> > products are measured. As I stated in my last note to the reflector,
the
> > 802.17 Working Group has the responsibility to complete the draft before
> > approving it and sending it to sponsor ballot. I personally believe
that
> > completion of the PICS should be among the highest priority jobs for all
> of
> > the section editors. Having the PICS complete should be a requirement
> > placed on the next draft of 802.17. Because of the importance of the
> PICS,
> > I would assume that the working group would want a full 30 day ballot
> cycle
> > to very carefully review them.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Robert D. Love
> > President, LAN Connect Consultants
> > 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> > Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> > email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Blakey, Sam" <Sam.Blakey@xxxxxxx>
> > To: "'Kshitij Kumar'" <kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Mike Takefman'"
> > <tak@xxxxxxxxx>; "'RPRWG'" <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:37 PM
> > Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > People's Front of RPR,
> > >
> > > Kshitij has very eloquently portrayed my precise concerns regarding
> draft
> > > 2.2 (the PICS), so I won't labour the point.
> > >
> > > I have some questions about PICS (which at the moment are in comments,
> but
> > I
> > > can change the comment to suit the rules...)
> > >
> > > 1) Are PICS items to shall / may a relationship of the form:
> > > a) one to one
> > > b) many to one (more than one PICS per shall / may)
> > > c) one to many (one PICS per more than one shall / may)
> > >
> > > One, two or all three of a, b, and c may be true.
> > >
> > > 2) Should every shall source a PICS?
> > >
> > > 3) Should every may source a PICS?
> > >
> > > 4) What happens to words like will, can, should, is recommended etc?
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kshitij Kumar [mailto:kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:10 AM
> > > > To: 'Mike Takefman'; RPRWG
> > > > Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > My interpretation of voting APPROVE (with or without
> > > > comments) on this draft is that we are agree that the draft
> > > > is complete (possibly with optional modifications).
> > > >
> > > > It is important for us to realize that this draft is still
> > > > far from complete.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, one important area that is clearly lacking is
> > > > the specification of the PICS Proforma. This crucial
> > > > information will be the basis for claiming conformance with
> > > > the standard.
> > > >
> > > > For example, Clause 5, Page 86 contains an editors note "This
> > > > standards draft shall not be considered to be complete until
> > > > this PICS proforma is complete. The editors estimate that the
> > > > level of completeness of this PICS proforma is 5%." For
> > > > Clause 6, Page 155 has a similar editor's note, except the
> > > > level of completeness is 10%.
> > > >
> > > > And please look at the other PICS Proforma clauses as well.
> > > >
> > > > Since the editors have explicitly stated that the present
> > > > draft is incomplete, and since an APPROVE vote on this draft
> > > > would mean that we are in agreement with the draft (as it is
> > > > today) becoming the standard, we need to vote DISAPPROVE to
> > > > give the editors time to complete the draft, including the
> > > > PICS Proforma, based on comments received this time.
> > > >
> > > > Because of the critical nature of the PICS Proforma, we must
> > > > have a full 30 day review of the final PICS once it is
> > > > completed, and not be forced to review it in a short
> > > > recirculation ballot cycle, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > After the review period - PICS entries - like anything else
> > > > new coming into the draft - should be voted into the draft,
> > > > one PICS entry at a time.
> > > >
> > > > I also do not agree with the view that the PICS can be
> > > > ignored until sponsor ballot - they are too critical to be
> > > > left till so late in the cycle.
> > > >
> > > > Further, allowing ONLY changed portions of the draft to be
> > > > commented against, forces us away from the preferred method
> > > > of improving the quality of the draft overall - since only a
> > > > subset can be improved. I agree we need to do so according to
> > > > the recirc process, but this means we should not really be
> > > > trying to be in recirculation until after the next meeting.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, if we are looking to progress the standard as
> > > > quickly as possible, we must DISAPPROVE this draft, which has
> > > > been declared incomplete by the editors, and to task the
> > > > editors with completing the next draft including all of the
> > > > new PICS, have those voted in one by one by the WG, and then
> > > > to have that draft balloted prior to the next meeting.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Kshitij Kumar.
> > > > Director, System Architecture,
> > > > Lantern Communications.
> > > > 408-521-6806
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 1:20 PM
> > > > To: RPRWG
> > > > Subject: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > RPRWGers,
> > > >
> > > > the ballot runs for approximately 1 more week, please
> > > > remember to get your votes in. Failure to respond to
> > > > ballots will result in loss of voting rights.
> > > >
> > > > A reminder about process.
> > > >
> > > > A passing ballot does not imply that the draft will
> > > > be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot. The WG must vote to
> > > > forward the draft for Sponsor Ballot. What a passing
> > > > ballot does is begin the recirculation process on
> > > > the draft. Once we are in recirculations, you may
> > > > only comment on changed portions of the draft or on
> > > > areas affected by a change elsewhere. Hence the process
> > > > begins to become bounded. As a WG, we should not forward
> > > > a draft for sponsor until we have reached the point where
> > > > improvements to the draft / concensus have been maximized.
> > > >
> > > > Thus your approve vote can be interpreted as either a
> > > > belief that it is time to start getting the draft
> > > > ready for sponsor ballot, or that you believe that it
> > > > is time to begin to recirculate. Both are equivalent.
> > > >
> > > > In terms of voting approve with comments versus
> > > > dissaprove with comments. If you fundamentally believe
> > > > that something is broken, then you may choose to vote
> > > > disapprove with comments. If you believe that something is
> > > > broken, but believe that you can work with your
> > > > fellow RPRWGers to resolve the comments you can vote
> > > > approve with comments. There is risk in voting approve
> > > > with comments, in that if the comment is not resolved
> > > > to your satisfaction, but the ballot passed and the
> > > > text is unchanged, then you are out of luck until the
> > > > draft comes back in sponsor (and you end up being a
> > > > member of the sponsor group, which is not guaranteed).
> > > >
> > > > Note: You may change your vote from approve to disapprove
> > > > during recirculations. All you have to do is comment on a
> > > > changed portion of text.
> > > >
> > > > Should a recirculated ballot fail, we are back to commenting
> > > > on the entire draft (and the number advances to the next
> > > > major revision).
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > > > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > > > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > > > voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
> > > >
> >
>