Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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 this meeting.
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 standards

To document the procedures for allocating Object Identifier values within IEEE 802 standards as well as providing documentation of root identifier values.

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 the result.

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 up.

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 lines.

By the way, do the rules define a point size? We can write it really small...;-)

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 text.

802.1D Rev
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 form.

If you have a formula that achieves the desired result without having to define a separate project to revise the title, please let me know.

Scope and purpose should not be identical.

See above.

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 PAR.

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.