Re: [802SEC] Comments on PARs
At 23:44 05/11/2002 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
Detail items that I have found on the stack of PARs that we are reviewing
I am sending a separate note on the meat of the mobility issue.
See you all in Hawaii.
Scope and purpose should not be identical.
I don't see that stated in the the guide for PAR submission. And it has
not stopped previous 802.1 PARs from being approved.
- Procedure for allocating Object Identifier values within IEEE 802
- To document the procedures for allocating Object Identifier values
within IEEE 802 standards as well as providing documentation of root
Unfortunately, by adopting the above wording, the purpose is now out of
scope, as the scope is the procedure (singular) and the purpose is
documenting the procedures (plural). Hence the utility of making scope
& purpose the same in this instance. We aren't intending to discuss
the procedure; simply document it; hence, the scope is (appropriately and
explicitly) to document the procedure. We don't intend to declare open
season on what the procedure might be - simply to document it & ship
Is this really going to be a stand-alone standard that will not be a part
of any other existing 802.1 standard?
That is our intent.
If so then we should seriously
consider giving it a number designation that will not be so confusing
over the long term.
802.1 has had, for some considerable time now (> 1 decade), multiple
standards under the 802.1 designation that cover distinct topics. Seems
way too late in the day to tell us that our numbering scheme is screwed
And yes, we have given very serious consideration to our numbering scheme
in the past and have concluded that what we have is no more or less
broken than the alternatives. More importantly, we decided long ago that
what we much preferred to do was to develop standards, rather than
develop numbering schemes for them.
The title is not sufficient for an
802 standard. Please provide fully expanded title.
It is highly likely that this title will change as a result of comments
received so far.
NESCOM requests that the PAR scope
be limited to 5 lines or less. What is shown in the draft is about
twice that long.
I understand that this is a request, not a requirement. It is a
non-trivial problem to define a scope for this project in as few as 5
lines, particularly as we are conscious of the need to limit the scope
here to a set of things that we can realistically achieve in a project of
finite duration. However, we will do what we can to reduce the number of
By the way, do the rules define a point size? We can write it really
The additional explanation provided
in item 18 sounds like a completely different project.
What is going on here?
Cut and paste bug - my apologies. Ignore the text in section 18 - it
should be completely blank. I will post the (pre)sumbitted
The title for a revision needs to match the title of the existing
document. the title on the draft PAR does not.
Not a requirement according to the guide for PAR submission. However, if
what you say is another of the myriad unwritten rules that litter the
IEEE bureaucracy, how do you ever change the title of a standard as part
of a revision (or by any other means for that matter)? The other part of
the "gotcha" here is that the title on the draft has to match
the title on the PAR.
The current title is the ISO standard title of "Information
technology....mumble mumble...Part 3: Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridges". This standard will never again see the light of day as an
ISO standard; hence the difference in title, which is only in the
throat-clearing bit that tells you whether the standard is ISO/IEC or
IEEE. The intent here is to get back to the original title as in its
first IEEE incarnation (802.1D:1990), which is what is shown on the PAR
If you have a formula that achieves the desired result without having to
define a separate project to revise the title, please let me
Scope and purpose should not be
The scope as put forth is
appropriate for a corrigenda. Incorporation of published amendments is an
editorial/publishing/business decision by the Standards Department and
does not require a PAR.
That may well be true; however, I don't see anything anywhere in the
rules stating that such a scope, or statements that explicitly note that
consolidation is part of the exercise, are inappropriate for a revision
Part of the objective here is to avoid the need for a separate
reaffirmation ballot in the same timescale (i.e., during 2003); a simple
editorial/publishing etc. act does not achieve this objective, as the
need (as I understand it) is for the entire document to be balloted,
either in a reaffirmation ballot or as a revision project. I believe the
proposed PAR meets that objective.
According to what is put forth in
item 18 this should be a revision to the existing PAR for P802.1y. The
designation "P802.1y" can be kept even if you wish to change it
to a revision as was done with 802.3aa and 802.3ag.
Not according to the NesCom secretariat, with whom I had a lengthy phone
conversation on this very point. I originally wanted to do just what you
suggested, but I was told that it is not possible to change a PAR from an
amendment to a revision, and that the appropriate move was to raise a new
PAR, using the original standard number (i.e., P802.1D), and at the same
time to request that the old PAR (P802.1y) be withdrawn. If you know
different, then please straighten Jodi out & then you can both let me
know the outcome.