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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership



Ken -

I don't believe that you are considered to be a SG until such a time as you are defined to be one. Right now, you are a hibernating WG.

Since a large part of the rationale for revising 802.10 that you presented in March was your view that a revised 802.10 would serve the needs of the Link Sec study group, I believe the appropriate course of action would be for any such PAR to be developed within the Link Sec SG. Right now, the SG has yet to determine whether or not 802.10 will play a part in whatever mechanisms they decide to use.

Regards,
Tony

At 19:23 12/04/2003 -0400, Ken Alonge wrote:
Mat-
 
I guess .10 is the exception again, since the hibernating members of .10 are developing a PAR and 5 criteria for the revision to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.  Since we are doing this work, are we considered a Study Group?  Under the current definition of an SG, I don't believe so.  But who is better qualified to develop the PAR and 5 Criteria for revision of a Standard than the hibernating working group members?  I would like to hear from some of the other Exec members on this, since I plan to submit the PAR for approval by the Exec at the July plenary.
 
Thanks - Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com
To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Ken,
 

It was 20 cents well spent.  But to be clear, a new WG can evolve from ANY study group Ė and EC SG or a WG SG.  The point is that some sort of work (a PAR) should be developed for the new WG before it pops into existence.  PARís (again I could be wrong) are developed normally in Study Groups.  I donít know of any exceptions to this these days.  So I believe a Study Group should always precede a PAR, and thus a new WG.  The same statements would hold for a hibernating WG being brought out of Hibernation.
 

Mat
 

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 4:01 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Mat-
 

The main difference that I see is that .10 was not formed from an EC study group and, therefore, the members wouldn't have built up voting rights credits. So, in order to handle a similar situation in the future (if one ever expects a similar situation to ever occur again) voting rights would have to be granted to all who attend the first meeting of the WG, so they could elect officers and begin voting on issues related to their work.  This is the model that could/should be used for un-hibernating a working group, as well. If the "unwritten" model within 802 forevermore is that all new WGs will ONLY come from ECSGs, then the rules changes being proposed will work, but I believe that this is a very shortsighted position.
 

Looks like we're back to my original e-mail on the topic, and my two cents wound up to be 20 cents.  Sorry to belabor the point.
 

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com
To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Ken,
 

I very much appreciate the history.  It sounds to me that your group had a relatively typical evolution.  I donít think what happened is incompatible with the rules we are suggesting for today.
 

Best Regards,
 

Mat
 

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:35 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: Russ Housley
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Mat-
 

I dug out the old minutes from the very first meetings of .10.  Kim was the drafter of the PAR, which was reviewed and approved by attendees of the pre-802.10 WG meetings.  The PAR was approved by the Exec during the July 1988 plenary meeting, which was the 4th meeting of the group that ultimately became 802.10.  The minutes from the 6th meeting, which is the 3rd meeting as 802.10, indicate that all attendees at meetings 4 & 5 had immediate voting rights.  They numbered about 25.  The attendees list from the subsequent 4 meetings (meetings 6-10) indicate that most (90%) of the original members who were granted voting rights continued to attend and made contributions to the development of the Standard.  In actuality, the voting membership grew to about 30 over the next few meetings.  Kim was there from day 1 of the group, even before it became 802.10.
 

By the way, .10 was formed from the membership of and was sponsored by not only the TC on Security and Privacy (as I stated previously), but also the TC on Computer Communications.  There was quite a diverse membership from the standpoint of industry, government, and academia representatives, as well as their expertise in networking and security.
 

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com
To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org ; tony@jeffree.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Ken,
 

What you describe sounds very much like an informal version of what I would normally expect to do today.  If I understand you correctly (correct me if I donít) the sequence was:
 

Informal discussion outside and within 802
Plenary 1: Present proposal need for new work item to EC and tutorial to membership
Plenary 2: Present PAR to EC.  Approve PAR. Approve WG with acting chair
Plenary 3: First WG meeting.  Have elections.
 

Today I think the sequence would have run:
 

Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work, tutorial to membership, form SG to write PAR
Plenary 2: Present and approve PAR.  Approve WG with acting chair
Plenary 3: First WG meeting.  Have elections.
 

So I donít think things are so different.  To me the more important questions are:
 

Did the original leadership of 802.10 (Kimberly for instance) participate in the PAR development?   Was the first WG meeting Kimberlyís first meeting?
 

How many showed up for that first meeting?  Of those that showed up, how many became regular members vs just showing up to say they have voting rights?  How many of those at the first meeting participated in the PAR development?  Were the one that stayed on in the group the ones that helped develop the PAR, or the ones who showed up for the first time at the first meeting?
 

I think these are the questions that are most relevant.  I think that today it is a given that we would not start a new WG without first having a draft PAR in mind for them to work on.  Personally, I would prefer a slightly extended SG process to give people more time to acclimate.  I would have preferred a process more like:
 

Plenary 1:  Present proposal for new work to EC, form SG
Plenary 2:  Present draft PAR and Tutorial to 802 membership
Plenary 3:  Approve PAR, approve new WG
Plenary 4:  First WG meeting.  Have elections.
 

But I recognize this might be impeding progress more that people would like, so I doubt I would ever mandate a 3 Plenary approval process.  Just my thoughts.
 

Mat
 

 

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:24 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Tony Jeffree
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Mat/Tony-
 

My recollection of what happened in the formation of .10 in the Wild Wild West days was that a group of security engineers who were members of the Technical Committee on Security and Privacy (not sure if I've got the name exactly right) determined that there was a significant need for security in 802 LANs.  A few of those engineers put together a tutorial, which was presented at an 802 plenary meeting (sometime in the 1987-88 timeframe).  Based on that tutorial and some discussion with members of the Exec, who agreed that secuirty should be provided for 802 LANs, a PAR was developed by the founders of .10 and submitted to the Exec for approval at the next plenary.  The rest is history.  All attendees at the first meeting of .10 immediately got voting rights (I unfortunately did not attend that first meeting, so I had to earn mine through the usual process).  The original .10 Chair (Kimberly Kirkpatrick) was granted Exec voting rights at the next plenary -- she had no previous 802 experience, but was mentored by the other Chairs.  When I took over from Kim in 1992 after she became seriously ill, I also had no experience in running an 802 Working Group (or even a study group for that matter), but I too was mentored by the other Chairs.  As I recall, there were also some tutorials offered by the IEEE Staff on "How to be a Good Chair" - my own made up title for this.  These were very helpful in learing the processes.
 

Obviously, things change over time (sometimes for the better), but I hope we don't ignore the successes of the past.  I firmly believe that there should be a well worded process for forming new Working Groups in any revision of the P&P, which is flexible enough to accommodate formation of a Working Group directly from an outside body of expertise that doesn't have to become a Study Group, which is spun off from another 802 Working Group first.
 

Also, at some point (hopefully soon) the issue of un-hibernating a Working Group needs to be addressed, because I will be presenting a PAR to the Exec before the next plenary for revisions to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.
 

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Jeffree
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10 AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Mat/Ken -

If my memory serves me correctly, the concept of Study Groups post-dates the formation of 802.10. At the time .10 was formed, the formation of new WGs was simply a result of the SEC waving its collective magic wand. As such, the 802.10 case doesn't shed any light whatsoever on current P&P or operating practice.

I believe the intent of the current 802 rules, particularly 5.3, is that a future new WG would not come into being without a Study Group first developing a PAR for its work and the SEC making a decision as to where that PAR would be placed. The wording in the rules could benefit from making that a more explicit requirement, but the intent is nonetheless clear. So we're not talking unwritten rules here; badly written rules, perhaps, but written nonetheless.

My personal view is that the same principle must apply to hibernating WGs - i.e., that they cannot be magically un-hibernated by a waving of the SEC magic wand without the pre-cursor of establishing a Study Group to define a PAR for the work that they might do.

Regards,
Tony





At 23:19 10/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Ken,
 
So I guess the first question is where do Working Groups come from?  My own opinion is that our rules are somewhat lacking in terms of a process by which WG s are formed.  For that matter, they are equally lacking in terms of the process followed to restart a WG.  Off hand it appears that they simply pop into existence by a vote of the EC.  But for sure Working Groups should only exist if they have at least one assigned task to do.  Normally we say a WG without an active PAR goes into Hibernation.  However if we look at SA Standards Board Operations Manual we find:
 
5.2 Project authorization
No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the working group
without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see
5.1.2).
 
6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)
As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair (or official
reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a
work made for hire as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or
interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE.
 
 
So clearly their intent is that the WG comes before the PAR.  This presents a bit of a chicken and egg problem.  In my recollection within 802, the only way a PAR comes into existence these days is by first having a Study Group study the matter.  If that SG develops a draft PAR, and the EC determines a new WG is needed to pursue that PAR, POP the WG comes into existence.  In my mind the SG plays the role of the pre-PAR WG.  I don t believe the SA is cognizant of SG s or gives them any status.  These seem to be an 802 unique thing (though I could be wrong).  However, I would not normally expect a WG to come into existence without first a debate as to where the work belongs, and an EC SG to at least determine if the work is appropriate for 802.  Apparently none of these steps occurred for 802.10, which surprises me.  I guess there could be such strong consensus when the issue was first raised to the EC that there was no need for an EC level SG, and the WG could simply pop into existence.  My own preference would be that a WG not come into existence until at least one PAR has been well defined for it to work on.  However, if a WG were to pop into existence without a PAR, I would hope that except for electing officers, they would initially operate in SG mode to develop a PAR, since they can t exist for long without one.  And I would hope that all the members of the WG were members of the SG, or else why would they be there?  Can their be a Task Group without a PAR?  Near as I can tell our rules don t really deal with Task Groups either.  So frankly, I am confused.
 
Could you provide more details on the formation of 802.10?  How did you get to your first PAR?
 
Thanks,
 
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); bob@airespace.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
 

Hi All-
 

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a little more.  In Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes to a Working Group evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be the method by which WGs have come into existence in the recent past) and that a WG doesn't pop into existence.  In fact, 802.10 did not evolve from a SG -- it "popped" into existence from work that began outside 802.  At the very first meeting of .10 everyone that attended was granted voting rights, and the Chair (who had not previously participated in 802) had Exec voting rights at the next Plenary.  Is it the expectation that this will NEVER happen again in 802? 
 

Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the current Exec knows (except me, since I haven't been around in a while) that ALL new WGs will ONLY come from SGs that have been spun off from existing WGs (and therefore people have been building up credits toward voting rights in the manner specified in the P&P), then I think the Exec needs to keep the current practice of awarding membership to all who attend the first meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.)  If this is really the case, then I think there may be some shortsightedness on the part of the Exec, as to where new 802 projects might come from.
 

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com
To: bob@airespace.com ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Bob,

I think you at least partially misunderstand my intent in the changes I proposed.  Your arguments seem to focus strongly on the officers of the group, and not the general membership.  So let me ask you this.  Why do we have the 3 session rule that normally applies to achieving membership?  If one meeting is enough for anyone to follow what is going on technically, and understand the procedures in place, why don t we just let every expert act as a member the moment they walk in the door?

A WG is not a virtual particle popping in and out of a vacuum.  On day one, it has a context that it evolved in and is continuing to evolve in.  That context is the Study Group it evolved from, and 802 itself.  To properly participate even in an election, I believe participants need to have a solid sense of what they are there to do, and how it is normally done.  Not to mention some level of familiarity with the candidates.  I don t think one meeting or even one session is enough.  And I don t think the creators of the 3 session rule did either.  While the EC may be able to mentor the leadership of a new WG, I don t think they can effectively mentor the membership itself if it is completely green along with the leadership.

 I firmly believe that the creators of the first meeting rule chose to let everyone in because it was convenient and easy to do the book keeping.  I am sure they saw the potential flaws, but presumed those potentials were generally remote and could be neglected.  They probably did not believe these remote possibilities justified the inclusion of a more complex initial membership process.  I think we now see that those potentials are larger than may have originally been anticipated.  I for one now see a need for a more complex start up process which better preserves the intent of the 3 session rule for gaining membership.  So again I ask, in your mind why have the 3 session rule if 3 sessions are not required to participate intelligently in a group?

Mat

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:30 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Mat,

I vote DISAPPROVE on this ballot.

I believe that including any criterion related to experience with LMSC, its working groups, or study groups as a prerequisite to holding office is a path to constant judgment calls by the SEC as to how much experience is enough, what experience is relevant, and how recent that experience must be. So, must an officer candidate hold a working group office prior to running a study group, in order to be qualified? Which positions? How long?
If we are going to require an experience criterion to be met, I want it to be explicit, concrete, and measurable. It must NOT be subject to interpretation.  Given that the current proposed change lacks this specificity:
In 5.1.3.1 delete:
"In no case should a person who is not a member in good standing of IEEE 802 by the end of the first session of establishment of a WG be considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."
and replace it with:
"Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice chair(s) shall be members of the working group."

I believe that the SEC has the obligation to mentor the officers that are chosen by the working groups. It is the membership of the working group that is best situated to evaluate the qualifications of its leadership. The SEC, at best, is second guessing the working group decisions.
I also don't agree with the substitution of study group participation for credit toward working group membership.  This is a hack to try to give preference to study group participants, on the theory that they have more "experience" with 802 by having attended a study group meeting or two and, thus, would make better officers.  Or, possibly, this is a misguided attempt to prevent "loading" the membership at the first meeting and electing a slate that is "distasteful" to some constituency.  This is unsubstantiated. 
The nature of the work of a study group and a working group is fundamentally different.  The task of a study group is basically administrative and marketing, to get a PAR and 5 criteria document approved.  The task of a working group (at least initially) is mostly technical, evaluating technical proposals and writing a standard.  The types and numbers of people that would attend the study group and working group meetings can be expected to be quite different.  Why should the working group members have their choices of officer candidates limited to those that chose to perform the administrative and marketing tasks of a study group, when the character of the work changes dramatically at the formation of the working group?
In 5.1.3.1 reverse the deletion of the first sentence of this clause (i.e., put it back).  This is clear and concise.  The deletion is completely ineffective, since all one has to do at the first meeting is present a letter of intention to participate to the chair, in order to gain instant membership according to the sentence that is proposed to start 5.1.3.1.    Also delete the first two sentences in the second paragraph.
 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:31 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Dear EC members,

Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on WG Membership.  This ballot was approved at the Friday March 14, 2003 plenary session.  It is identical to what was presented at the Plenary session except that per the minutes of that meeting I have change the Section number 1.1.1.1 to 5.1.3.1.  The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached document.  
Ballot Opens:  March 27, 2003

Ballot Closes: April 28, 2003  11:59 PM

WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG members to comment through you.  Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the "802ALL" email list as well. While I encourage discussion on the reflector, I am trying something new this time, and have included a ballot response / comment form.  Prior to the close of the ballot, please fill out the attached form with your vote and a summary of your comments.  Then send it to the reflector.  I will accept updated forms until the close of the ballot.  I m also open to comments on how this process works.  Hopefully this will make it easier for me to compile and distribute comments, and not much more difficult for everyone else.  If it doesn t work, we will fall back to the old process the next round of ballots.

Thanks & Regards,

Mat

Matthew Sherman

Vice Chair, IEEE 802

Technology Consultant

Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
 

Regards,
Tony

Regards,
Tony