Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
Note that the difference you identify between a TAG and WG is called out
in the P&P, but is not always relevant for all uses of the term WG/TAG.
I would only modify the cases where this difference is not relevant.
I have added 'TG' to the Acronym list, but to save space, said it meant
either 'Task Group' or 'Task Force'. Again, I could call out a
distinction, but currently I don't believe there is one (except in
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@WK3C.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:59 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.