Fwd: Re: [802-11WG] untestable PICS items
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-Originating-IP: [129.6.16.226]
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0)
X-Spam-Score: 1.40 (*) [Hold at 10.00]
HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE,PORN_RP_PICS,SPF(none,0)
X-IEEE-UCE-Filter-Settings: 80_DEFAULT (inherits from default)
X-IEEE-UCE-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available
X-Scanned-By: IEEE UCE Filtering Service (uce . ieee . org) on
140.98.193.229
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008
08:54:12 -0400
Reply-To: David Cypher <david.cypher@nist.gov>
Sender: ***** IEEE stds-802-11 List *****
<STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
From: David Cypher <david.cypher@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [802-11WG] untestable PICS items
X-To:
STD-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
To: STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
List-Help:
<
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-802-11>,
<
mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-802-11>
List-Unsubscribe:
<
mailto:STDS-802-11-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-Subscribe:
<
mailto:STDS-802-11-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-Owner:
<
mailto:STDS-802-11-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure
engine=4.65.7111:2.4.4,1.2.40,4.0.164
definitions=2008-03-24_02:2008-03-21,2008-03-24,2008-03-24
signatures=0
X-PP-SpamDetails: rule=spampolicy2_notspam policy=spampolicy2 score=0
spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0
classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=3.1.0-0803050000
definitions=main-0803240029
X-PP-SpamScore: 0
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: owner-stds-802-11@listserv.ieee.org
X-NIST-MailScanner-Information:
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
This whole discussion of PICS and PICS Proforma just begs and screams for
a consistent understanding within the IEEE 802 and not just one working
group's interpretation by individuals forced on another working group at
letter ballot time.
It is time that these individuals who want tell others what a PICS and
PICS Proforma are do so using authoritative documents on the subject of
PICS and PICS Proforma creation and not be based on person
ideas.
I, myself, heard three interpretations during last week's meetings.
It indicates to me that there is a lot of misconception and
misunderstanding due to copying from previous PICS and PICS Proformas
instead of basing a PICS Proforma on the "Standard" Methodology
and Framework documentation.
For example,
There is no IEEE 802 requirement that a standard contain a PICS
Proforma and is there for not a valid reason for a NO vote for a standard
not containing one.
These is no IEEE 802 that mandates a PICS Proforma question for
every "Shall" or "may"
There is no requirement that every PICS Proforma question be
testable. As Bob O'Hara stated.
Sounds like a good time for a Plenary Tutorial on such matters.
Provided everyone is willing to learn and go forward with knowledge and
stop arguing for the sack of personal positions.
David Cypher
P.S. By the way just because one cannot determine how to test
something, does not mean someone else cannot determine how. The
example used can be tested. How is my IP.
===========================================================
At 02:28 PM 3/22/2008, Tony Jeffree wrote:
--- This message came from the
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- Bob -
Hmmm...not quite...
A PICS has a number of functions - at least one of which is to form the
starting point for figuring out which test suites would be used for
testing conformance. Most of the original intent is somewhat moot these
days, especially given the absence of standardized test suites, and as
you say, it is near impossible to get the suppliers to fill them out.
However, a major and to my view important function remains, and that is
to provide a check-list for implementors so that they can figure out
exactly what features are required given the selection of a set of
options. Doing that by a serial search of the text can be somewhat
trying.
I would agree with you that there can be requirements stated in a
standard that aren't testable, and that if they show up in the PICS then
the PICS isn't a statement of testability. However, I would argue that
you should only be using the Shall word or the May word, for that matter,
on things that *are* testable in external behavior; otherwise, the
normative wording is (to say the last) somewhat futile.
Regards,
Tony
At 16:25 22/03/2008, Bob O'Hara wrote:
--- This message came from the
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
The PICS is not a statement of testability. It is a statement of
implementation. The box is checked “yes” if the item is implemented
and “no” or “n/a” if it is not implemented. The purpose of a PICS,
though it seems to be rarely used, is for a customer to get a completed
PICS from their equipment supplier. If you have ever tried to do
that, you would find, as I have, that it is nearly impossible to
obtain.
-Bob
From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11 List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Richard
Roy
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 5:56 AM
To: STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802-11WG] untestable PICS items
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
1) Can/should Annex A contain untestable items?
2) If a PICS item is untestable, what is the appropriate box for someone
filling out a compliance statement to check: YES or NO?
Consider a statement in the base document such as “The STA shall discard
the packet.” Normally such a statement would generate a PICS item stating
that to be compliant, a STA must discard the packet. This is
clearly not testable without access to the machine code and every storage
area in the STA. Assume a manufacturer of a device chooses not to
discard the packet, and instead uses that packet in some innovative
manner by which the efficiency of his implementation is increased over
that of other implementations. His STAs now outperform those from
others manufacturers. Should that manufacturer state his device is
non-compliant and check NO in the compliance statement? Is there
anything preventing that manufacturer from claiming his device is
compliant by checking YES?
Any thoughts?
RR
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then amend
your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then amend
your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then amend
your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then amend
your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________