| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
From: Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com
[mailto:Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com] Hi Again Vivek, To paraphrase, the reason given for
sticking with the amendment based approach is because we have been taking
that approach in the past. [VG] There is no past here. This approach was taken because
the Security SG recommended it as way forward. The Security SG did discuss this aspect, as to whether this
is a new project or an amendment, and the conclusion so far has been that this
is an amendment. Did we take that approach in the past
because there is something about that approach that is better suited to the
technology involved? If there is nothing inherent in the amendment approach
that is essential to this work, then why not use the correct process from where
we are today, given that we have 'discovered' a good reason to change. As we have all heard, the job of an SG is
to create the PAR and not to go into solution space. We have been criticizing
people for going into solution space during the SG. This is for a good
reason... because the PAR may not be approved, so the work towards a solution
then is not useful. Let's revise the decision. Instead
of waiting for the base document to be finished before submitting the SSG
PAR, let's push ahead now for the approval of the SSG PAR based on
the process you outlined below. This way the SSG member's work will have
legitimacy and will no doubt be working towards a standard. Also, it will
shorten the schedule for the SSG considerably. Waiting for approval of the base
spec, possibly requesting additional PAR extensions for the SSG, then adding
the 4 years onto that delay (based on the SG's internal estimate of completion)
pushes the solution's availability significantly further out. [VG] I am not sure what you are suggesting here. The Security work has been considered as an integral part of
base specification and is hence recommended as an amendment to base
specification. Any further discussion on this would need to take place as
part of the Security SG in March. We all care about the progress of the SSG,
and if the solution you outlined below can be made to work, it's a better
choice than waiting. [VG] That approach was suggested by Bob Grow in past , but Paul
suggested if we are so close to approving the base spec, then filing the PAR
amendment in July is a good way forward. Kind Regards -Vivek |