[802SEC] Re: staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
Let's discuss this next week at the Interim Session. I'm sure we can find a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger B. Marks" <email@example.com>
Cc: <GAntonello@wi-lan.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
Jodi asked that I discuss this with you. I'd like to make the following
(1) Jodi suggested that the numbering scheme I'm discussing is one that "I
am proposing". I don't think that's a correct description. The scheme is the
one that is in actual use. It was used by NesCom and the IEEE-SA Standards
Board in renumbering three 802.16 PARs (based on staff requests) last June.
One of those PARs led to a standard that was published last August and
approved by ANSI. Another PAR led to a standard that was approved by the
SASB last month.
(2) I agree that the numbering scheme in use does not tell the user on which
version the compliance is based. However, as I have previously noted, the
proposed alternative doesn't either. However, that proposal is worse because
the document number would misleadingly imply that it _does_ provide the
version on which the compliance is based. For instance, IEEE Standard
802.16/Conformance01-2003 says "This document is Part 1 of a multi-part
deliverable addressing conformance to the WirelessMAN-SC air interface in
IEEE 802.16... When IEEE 802.16 is referenced this generally includes the
base document and any existing amendments and corrigenda." The two existing
amendments - 802.16a and 802.16c - were both cited as normative references.
Renumbering the standard as IEEE Standard 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003
would imply that it addresses conformance based on IEEE Standard
802.16-2001, but that implication would be erroneous because the technical
content was altered in the amendments.
(3) The numbering scheme in use was approved by in an 802 EC email ballot.
The only Dis came from Bob Grow, because "The name is too long and
concatenated format decreases readability." Based on that comment, I would
hate to go back to Bob and tell him that we have renumbered a standard as
"IEEE Standard 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003"
(4) I don't fully understand the staff proposal. Is it not only to renumber
the proposed new PAR but also to:
(a) renumber the published IEEE Standard 802.16/Conformance01-2003
(b) renumber the approved IEEE Standard 802.16/Conformance02-2003
(c) yet again renumber the outstanding PAR P802.16/Conformance03?
Note that renumbering the published standard would require a revision of its
frontmatter, which explains under "Conformance test methodology" the
numbering scheme in current use.
I request that NesCom continue with the numbering scheme in current use.
At 08:39 -0500 04/01/05, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>In my previous e-mail, I forwarded the IEEE-SA PAR Numbering Policy,
>approved December 2003.
>If you look at the numbering scheme that you are proposing, the user would
>not know if Conformance04-2003 was conformance to IEEE Std 802.16-2001 or
>to a revision of 802.16 (e.g. 802.16-2004). The policy was reviewed by
>myself, Yvette and Paul Nikolich and approved by NesCom.
>I would suggest that you discuss this issue with Paul as he is a member of
>NesCom and see what his thoughts are.
>International Stds Programs and Governance
>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>FAX +1 732 875 0695
> "Roger B. Marks"
> <email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> rg> cc:
email@example.com, y.hoSang@ieee.org, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> 12/24/2003 03:25 Subject: staff request to
again renumber 802 Conformance standards
>I appreciate your attempt to resolve this problem, but I simply cannot
>accept the staff request on this issue.
>The problem (as documented in the email trail below) is that staff wants to
>renumber our proposed P802.16/Conformance04 PAR, and, to boot, renumber the
>previous documents in the series, backing out of an agreement reached just
>six months ago to renumber projects in accordance with staff requests. I
>think I should recap the history:
>(1) NesCom and the SASB approved the first three PARs in the series as
>P1802.16.1, P1802.16.2, and P1802.16.3. AFTER the first was through Sponsor
>Ballot and the Sponsor Ballot Group for the second was in place, staff
>decided that it was unsatisfied with the numbering of all three PARs.
>(2) We worked out a new numbering systems of the form "IEEE
>802.N/Conformance01-2003". The 802 LMSC Executive Committee ran a ballot to
>approve this form. NesCom and the Standards Board renumbered all three PARs
>accordingly in June 2003. We duly notified the affected parties of the
>(3) Subsequently, IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01-2003 has been published,
>IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance02-2003 has approved by RevCom, and
>P802.16/Conformance03 has passed Sponsor Ballot unanimously (albeit with
>comments to resolve).
>(4) In November, we submitted the next PAR in the series:
>P802.16/Conformance04-2003. You responded that staff now wants to change
>the PAR numbering format to "P802.16-20xx/Conformance04-20xx". I said that
>this doesn't follow the approved numbering system. You said that staff
>wants to move to this new convention and therefore wants to RENUMBER THE
>PRIOR PUBLISHED STANDARD to meet it. You didn't mention the 02 standard and
>03 project, but I presume that staff will proposed to renumber those again
>(5) You have asked whether I approve of this change. The answer is simple:
>Jodi, I believe that a staff request to once again renumber projects, even
>after a previous change was agreed to by all parties (including the 802 EC
>in a ballot) and served as the basis of approved standards, is
>Furthermore, I believe that the proposed new scheme is faulty, for the
>(a) "IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003" is an absurdly long and
>complicated document number.
>(b) Using a year twice in the same document number is confusing.
>(c) Most fundamentally, using the publication year of the base document is
>inaccurate and misleading. For instance, the standard that has been
>proposed for renaming is NOT strictly based on IEEE Std 802.16-2001. It is
>based on that standard as amended by IEEE Std 802.16c-2002 and IEEE Std
>802.16a-2003. You simply can't convey this fact in the document number,
>unless you want something like "IEEE Std 802.16-2001, 802.16c-2002,
>802.16c-2003/Conformance01-2003". And I don't find that acceptable either.
>It is my wish that staff accepts the prior agreed-to numbering scheme,
>accepts the number proposed on 802's P802.16/Conformance04 submission, and
>retracts the plan to "redesignate" IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01 as
>IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01.
>I'm sorry we've run into a conflict at this time of year. I know that many
>of us, including myself, are on vacation right now and don't relish any
>complications. However, I am sure I would eventually regret going along
>with the proposal simply for the sake of harmony.
>I do wish you the a happy holiday season and look forward to a happy
>resolution of the problem.
>At 15:38 -0500 03/12/19, email@example.com wrote:
>>Further to my voice mail earlier:
>>I have spoken to Yvette HoSang about the newly-published conformance
>>standard. She confirmed that this will be redesignated at IEEE Std
>>802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003. The number does need to track back to the
>>date of the source standard.
>>As you indicated below, Conformance04 will relate to the current project
>>revising IEEE Std 802.16-2001; therefore, the project for Conformance04
>>should be numbered as P802.16-20xx/Conformance04-20xx. The reason for the
>>two sets of "xx"s is the first sent in the standard number denotes the
>>FUTURE year of publication of the revision project for 802.16; the second
>>set of "xx"s represents the year of publication for the conformance
>>If you could please let me know if we can now move forward with this PAR
>>submission, I would really appreciate it.
>>International Stds Programs and Governance
>>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>>Our newly-published conformance standard is IEEE
>>The title doesn't track back to the date of the source standard.
>>Conformance04 will probably relate to IEEE 802.16-2004, since we are
>>currently doing a revision.
>> >Dear Roger:
>>>I think I was confused. According to the NesCom numbering policy:
>>>Projects for conformance may have unique numbers unrelated to the
>>>for which conformance is being defined; they may have a parallel number
>>>the standard for which conformance is being defined, e.g., P1656 could be
>>>the conformance project to IEEE Std 656-20xx; or they may maintain the
>> >numeric designation of the standard for which a conformance project is
>> >being defined, e.g., the first conformance project to IEEE Std
>> >would be P1905.2-20xx/Conformance01-20xx. The latter method is
>> >recommended for multipart conformance projects to a single standard. In
>>>special instances, a predetermined designation may be needed, e.g.,
>>>international coordination, and shall be submitted to NesCom for
>>>Therefore, your document should be numbered as
>>>P802.16-2001/Conformance01-20xx (as it is conforming to IEEE Std
>>>802.16-2001). Is this your intention? If so, then this is the correct
>>>My apologies for the confusion.
>> >Jodi Haasz
>>>Sorry, but I am still confused that you have "20xx" twice in the PAR
>>>number. I don't think that was the agreed-to scheme. Our two previous
>>>in the series are listed in the database as:
>>>Again, it's fine to have "20xx" once. But what is the point of having it
>>>Paul: what do you think?
>> >>>In regards to having 20xx twice in the number, the reason is that
>> >>>this is a conformance document to the revision you are doing, there is
>>>>>approval year yet. Paul Nikolich, Yvette HoSang and I have revised the
>>>>>IEEE-SA PAR Numbering Policy and the number scheme was agreed to by
>>>>>Please let me know if the attached is satisfactory.
>>>>>(See attached file: 802-16-20xx_Conformance04-20xx.pdf)
>>>>>International Stds Programs and Governance
>>>>>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>>>>>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>> >>Do we really need "20xx" twice in the PAR number? I am happy with zero
>>>>times, and I would be OK with one. But two seems like too many.
>>>>The first three in this series had the form P802.16/Conformance0n-200x.
>>>>Can you send me an update?