Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
- To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
- From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:33:40 -0800
- Reply-To: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
- Thread-Index: AcYQHYnU7jDqvGvGTlyDfI4Crua3EwAADacwACtVhKAAISdsIAABFjTA
- Thread-Topic: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
My first comment was a bit flipant. If there are very few mentions of
task forces and task groups, why force the abreviation for both to be
TG? Is it that big a problem to include TG/TF as the acronym?
Carl raises a substantive issue with replacing all uses of WG/TAG with
WG. With a bit more thought, I'm not sure that the simplification
enhances clarity, it probably detracts from it, and we would need to
inspect every case of TAG and determine if the substitution is correct.
Probably something of a stretch for an editorial change as some of them
From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@WK3C.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:22 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
> A few observations on your "more extensive" changes, and
> desired changes.
> 1. If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll
> have a harder time arguing against a task force being
> abrievated as TG.
Mat and Bob ...
There is a distinct difference between a TAG and a WG ... TAGs may not
(full use) standards - only Recommended Practices and other "specialty"
documents within their chartered purview ...
Why would a task force be abbreviated "TG" ???
> 2. No problem on lower case plenary and interim. Unless the
> WG plenary change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC
> Plenary) from a generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC
> Plenary). But then, capitalization being the only
> distinguishing characteristic would probably be a bit too
> subtle for me.
I have no problem with the little p ...
> 3. Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent
> working guide. We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB
> requirements at all, only reference them. It is in conflict
> with 7.4 (two plenary sessions instead of six months). The
> second bullet is instructions for filling out the PAR form
> and don't belong here any more than the bad reference.
Agree with Bob ...
> 4. It seems strange to me to replace things like "working
> groups" with WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P
> of "WGs". Your attempt to have the singular be defined as
> either singular or plural is incomplete.
Agree with Bob ...
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.