[802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ ****BALLOT WITHDRAWAL*** To conditionally approve forwarding P802.17 to RevCom under procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P
Dear EC members,
Based on input from several EC members, it has become apparent to me that
the below motion is unnecessary, since the conditional approval granted to
Mike Takefman on forwarding 802.17 to RevCom is in effect until the July
2004 plenary session, therefore I am withdrawing the below motion from
Roger, please work on clarifying Procedure 10 to remove any ambiguity with
respect to the duration of a granted conditional approval and provide your
interpretation to me and Mat Sherman for inclusion in the next draft of the
rules Mat is working on.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:12 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ To conditionally approve forwarding
P802.17 to RevCom under procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P
> Dear EC Members,
> This is a 10 day email ballot to make a determination on the following
> motion. The ballot opens 6:30PM EDT 23 April 2004 and closes 6:30PM EDT 3
> May 2004.
> Motion: To conditionally approve forwarding P802.17 to RevCom under
> procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P.
> Moved: Mike Takefman
> Second: Bob O'Hara.
> --Paul Nikolich
> Dear EC Members,
> In the preceding email, I detailed the results of our
> last recirculation ballot and our plan moving forward.
> I therefore make the following EC email ballot motion:
> Move to conditionally approve forwarding P802.17 to RevCom under
> procedure 10 of the LMSC P&P.
> May I have a second?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Takefman" <tak@CISCO.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:56 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] Result of 802.17 D3.2 Recirculation / Conditional
> > Dear EC Members,
> > On April 21, 2004 the CRG of 802.17 met to resolve comments on
> > the Sponsor Ballot Recirculation of P802.17 D3.2. The recirculation
> > ballot closed on April 16, 2004.
> > I regret to inform the EC that I believe we have failed to
> > meet the conditions set forth in Procedure 10. Specifically,
> > (item 4) we have chosen to make some changes to the draft that do
> > constitute technical changes (and are detailed below).
> > That being said, as the volume of comments were down
> > substantially from previous ballots and the operational technical
> > change corrects a rather obscure corner case I will be
> > requesting the EC to grant conditional approval again
> > under Procedure 10 via an email ballot (to follow
> > after this email).
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > P802.17 D3.2 Recirc Statistics: Ballot closed on April 16, 2004.
> > 76 Approve 4 Disapprove 5 Abstains = 95% Affirmative
> > No new disapprove voters:
> > Note: One of the disapprove voters had flipped his vote via email to
> > me but did not submit a new ballot. Therefore the Approval ratio
> > could be as high as 96% (77/3/5).
> > 67 comments were received from 7 commentors:
> > Only 1 negative balloter submitted comments (30 comments)
> > 30 Editorial comments
> > 9 Technical Binding comments from an existing negative voter
> > 28 Technical Non Binding comments from approving voters
> > No new valid disapprove votes or comments on new issues that were
> > not resolved to the satisfaction of the disapprove voter.
> > 5 unresolved comments from a negative voter. All comments were
> > against non-changebar text. 4 were restatements of issues raised
> > in previous ballots, 1 was an editorial change (to reformat a
> > table) marked as a technical issue.
> > Technical/Operational Change:
> > -An error was found in the protection state machine. A corner
> > case/race condition that is highly unlikely to occur in a real system
> > but is theoretically possible was fixed.
> > Technical/Non Operational Change:
> > -IETF review of the MIB found that a few initialization
> > values / indentifiers were incorrect and caused MIB compilation
> > to fail.
> > Pseudo-Technical / Editorial Change:
> > -inconsistent use of units for 1 variable. One variable was marked as
> > being in micro-seconds (with its default being 1000), whereas the other
> > related variables in the same state machine used milliseconds.
> > -3 changes in existing PICs statements
> > -2 optional PICs statements added
> > -missing references
> > -other minor editorial fixes
> > Moving Forward:
> > http://www.ieee802.org/17/member/draftballots/d3_3/index.htm contains
> > the latest draft and all associated documentation.
> > Draft 3.3 and associated comments were created and forwarded to SA Staff
> > for Recirculation Ballot. Balloting started on date April 23, with
> > end date May 8.
> > Assuming that the EC grants conditional approval for 802.17 D3.3:
> > A teleconference will be held Monday May 10th, 2004 to review comments /
> > determine if we can submit to RevCom.
> > Recirculation ballot will be started May 13th (as appropriate).
> > cheers,
> > mike
> > ----------
> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> list is maintained by Listserv.
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.