Re: [802SEC] LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation Numbering
Pat,
Of course, you are right that draft numbers start with "P". I didn't
invent the formats I quoted; I was just citing the former P&P and the
current P&P. Both are incorrect regarding the draft format. It should
be, I believe, "P802.na/Di". I suspect that we all follow that format
(though 802.16 doesn't use decimal draft numbering).
For other documents, I agree that P802.n{sc} is incomplete. However,
the old "802.n{tg}-yy/mm" works for us. The "mm" is a sequence
number, which allows for multiple documents addressing the same
project in the same year.
Personally, I think there would be an advantage to having all the
projects following a similar process for document numbering and
archiving. However, I would be loathe to change the 802.16 system,
and I suspect that other groups would have the same view. Therefore,
I don't see any such harmonization in the works.
Roger
At 04:38 PM -0800 06/02/07, Pat Thaler wrote:
>Roger,
>
>What you suggest for draft numbering is incorrect. Drafts are to start
>P802 and not 802 - that I believe is IEEE standards practice and serves
>to clearly distinguish between the drafts for a project and a standard.
>The full thing we put on a draft is IEEE P802.na so if the P wasn't
>there it would look like a standard. Also the draft revision number is
>Di and unless something changed that was also IEEE standards practice -
>not something we cooked up.
>
>Both IEEE 802.1 and 802.3 number their drafts that way: e.g. IEEE
>P802.1af/D0.3 and IEEE P802.3as/D2.3. The draft revision number uniquely
>identifies the draft so the date isn't part of the document number. The
>date normally appears in the page header after the draft number. To me
>the draft revision is more informative than a year and month because it
>gives an idea of the status of the document you are looking at. For
>example, when I see the number P802.3as/D2.3, I know that the draft is
>the 3rd revision after working group ballot has started.
>
>I agree with Bob and Tony that the P&P should only address document
>naming for drafts if it does anything along those lines. It shouldn't
>impose a document naming system for non-draft documents.
>
>For non-drafts, IEEE 802.1 uses something similar to IETF draft naming
>with the author last name, group designation (admittedly there seems to
>be some inconsistancy in the order of these two in the name) followed by
>a short title and month and year of the meeting it was prepared for
>(e.g. 0106). In IEEE 802.3, each group has its own document list so they
>put the name as just <author last name>-<monthyear>-<nmuber>. Month year
>is again a 4 digit representation of the two. If I ruled the world, I
>would prefer year month (because it alphabetizes to chronological order)
>and I would prefer that they added the project two letter designation. I
>don't find the lack of project designation a serious problem because I
>keep each projects files in separate directories. In any case, I find
>that I can quickly locate the document I want even years later with the
>.1 and .3 systems. I've worked in groups that use more of a pure number
>for submitted documents and it is much harder to identify the right
>documents unless one has an index.
>
>P802.n{sc} or 802.n{tg}-yy/mm is obviously an incomplete system since a
>group can have multiple submissions on a single day so one needs
>something to distinguish amongst them.
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:53 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation
>Numbering
>
>The 802 numbering system was in place when 802.16 got started in 1999,
>so we used it. We've basically been using it ever since, with a few
>minor adjustments/improvements.
>
>The current P&P suffers from two typos that were introduced in the 14
>September 2005 revision. The corrections are:
>
>P802.na-Di => 802.na/Di-yy/m
>P802.n{sc} => 802.n{tg}-yy/m
>
>The system works for us. In fact, we would have chaos without it.
>It's obviously not to everyone's taste.
>
>There are still a few ambiguities in our system. At our last session, I
>was informed by new participant that I need to fix those ambiguities and
>fully document our numbering system. I offered to add this to my to-do
>list.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 10:20 PM +0000 06/02/07, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>Bob/Stuart -
>>
>>I must admit that this one snuck under my radar - when did we agree to
>>this fascinating piece of text?
>>
>>The one saving grace it has as far as I can tell is that *nobody* can
>>currently be in conformance with it, due to the fact that the
>>specification is ambiguous/broken for the non-draft ("Or") case.
>>
>>When I mentioned document numbering schemes and software with my WG a
>>plenary or so ago, I have to say that the level of enthusiasm was off
>>the scale. I'm sure I can leave it to your imagination as to which end
>>of the scale it was off.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>At 21:57 07/02/2006, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>>Stuart:
>>>
>>>IEEE 802.3 certainly qualifies as one of the "others" of whom you have
>
>>>"suspicions".
>>>
>>>I believe there is little support within 802.3 for the document
>>>numbering scheme, nor a perception that anything beyond a defined
>>>numbering plan for projects (and consequently standards) is required.
>
>>>I would be happy to do a straw poll on Monday at my opening plenary
>>>meeting to more objectively determine the answers to the above or
>>>other related questions.
>>>
>>>--Bob Grow
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@OK-BRIT.COM]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:15 AM
>>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>>Subject: [802SEC] LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation
>>>Numbering
>>>Importance: High
>>>
>>>
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>>In doing my normal reviewing of the various P&P's I asked my
>>>Vice-Chair (Harry Worstell) to confirm one issue area under the
>>>January 2006 Revised LMSC Rules relating to "Documentation Numbering"
>>>in clause 19.
>>>
>>>Believing at first that the rule related to Drafts only, but on second
>
>>>review independently by myself and Harry we both came to the
>>>conclusion that it also related to WG's and TAGs. If this is truly the
>
>>>case then Harry has officially advised me that:
>>>
>>>"Please be advised that IEEE 802.11 is unable to meet the new IEEE 802
>
>>>LMSC Policies and Procedures dated January 2006 with respect to the
>>>new document numbering system until we acquire new software that can
>>>accommodate that numbering scheme".
>>>
>>>To verify the situation I asked Harry to further request an
>>>understanding of the rule from the LMSC 1st Vice-Chair responsible for
>
>>>rules (Mat
>>>Sherman)
>>>who has confirmed our understanding of the rule.
>>>
>>>With this situation we believe that we and others are in violation of
>>>said rule, and look to other WG and TAG Chairs to take notice of this
>>>fact and for them to independently review our suspicions.
>>>
>>>As suggested in Mat's last email may be the rule should relate only to
>
>>>Drafts as the original intention. But I ask you, that this is
>>>addressed urgently at the forthcoming March Plenary to everybodies
>satisfaction.
>>>
>>>Respectfully,
>>>
>>>Stuart
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>>[mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
>>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:04 PM
>>>To: hworstell@research.att.com
>>>Cc: stuart.kerry@philips.com; stuart@ok-brit.com; apetrick@widefi.com;
>
>>>paul.nikolich@ATT.NET
>>>Subject: RE: LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation Numbering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Harry,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This has been a standing issue for me. I recognize the 802.11 does
>>>not (and probably can't reasonably) follow this format. I did once
>>>try
>>>(unsuccessfully) to change / clarify this section so as to make it
>>>more acceptable. I would encourage someone (Stuart?) to propose a
>>>specific change correcting it in such a way as to allow 802.11 to
>comply with it.
>>>This could be a simple as to clarify that this numbering system only
>>>applies to Drafts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hope the comments are helpful.
> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Mat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>From: hworstell@research.att.com [mailto:hworstell@research.att.com]
>>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:58 PM
>>>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>>Cc: stuart.kerry@philips.com; stuart@ok-brit.com; apetrick@widefi.com;
>
>>>paul.nikolich@ATT.NET
>>>Subject: LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation Numbering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In looking over the January 4, 2006 issue of the LMSC Policies and
>>>Procedures, in
>>>
>>>Section 19 - IEEE LMCS Draft Numbering Plan, it appears to be
>>>presenting a numbering
>>>
>>>system for the working group documents "sc = an optional subcommittee
>>>designator to be
>>>
>>>used specifically for tracking subcommittee submissions that are
>>>independent of the Working
>>>
>>>Group/TAG as a whole. Documents relevant to the whole Working
>>>Group/TAG will use the
>>>
>>>802.n-yy/m form. The allowed formats for a subcommittee designator
>are:
>>>one
>>>letter, two letters,
>>>
>>>or one letter followed by one number. All other characters are
>>>specifically prohibited. "
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>My question is are all working group documents other than drafts
>>>required to follow this numbering requirement?
>>>
>>>If so, this will be extremely difficult for the IEEE 802.11 Working
>>>Group to comply
>>>
>>>with.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Harry Worstell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>19. IEEE LMSC Draft Numbering Plan
>>>
>>>This numbering scheme applies to all LMSC Working Groups and TAGs.
>>>
>>>It covers all IEEE 802 Drafts.
>>>
>>>LMSC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVISED PAGE 39 OF 42 FILE:
>>>LMSC_P&P_NOVEMBER_2005_R051204.DOC
>>>
>>>The format for the document numbers will be as follows:
>>>
>>>Either P802.na-Di (formal draft standards)
>>>
>>>Or P802.n{sc} (all other documents & correspondence)
>>>
>>>Where:
>>>
>>>n = a Working Group/TAG Designator (i.e. 0, 1, ...),
>>>
>>> a = a PAR Series Designator (i.e. _, A, B, C,...)
>
>>>for drafts of a document produced under an active
>>>
>>> PAR, and must include the {/Di} field,
>>>
>>>i = a Draft Revision Number for working documents produced under an
>>>active PAR. Digits for the number may be separated by '-' but should
>>>not use any other separators.
>>>
>>>yy = a year designator (i.e. 87, 88, 89, ...) to indicate the year in
>>>which the document number was assigned,
>>>
>>>m = a sequence number which starts at 1 at the beginning of each year
>>>and is increased by 1 each time a document number is assigned,
>>>
>>>sc = an optional subcommittee designator to be used specifically for
>>>tracking subcommittee submissions
>>>
>>>that are independent of the Working Group/TAG as a whole. Documents
>>>relevant to the whole Working Group/TAG
>>>
>>>will use the 802.n-yy/m form. The allowed formats for a subcommittee
>>>designator are: one letter, two letters, or one
>>>
>>>letter followed by one number. All other characters are specifically
>>>prohibited.
>>>
>>>With the exception of the grandfathered 802.1 numbering scheme, IEEE
>>>802 draft standards documents
>>>
>>>shall follow the numbering protocols outlined in the IEEE Standards
>>>Style Manual. One approved exception
>>>
>>>to these stated policies is that the numbering of draft standards
>>>amendments that convert to a revision
>>>
>>>project shall contain the phrase "-REV" preceding the alphabetical
>>>designation of the project.
>>>
>>>Harry R. Worstell
>>>Sr. Technical Specialist
>>>Communications Technology Research
>>>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>>Vice Chair, IEEE 802.11 Working Group
>>>Room B233, Building 103
>>>180 Park Avenue
>>>P.O. Box 971
>>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6915
>>>Cell +1(973) 727-5564
>>>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5873
>>>EMAIL: hworstell@research.att.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>
>>>From: hworstell@research.att.com [mailto:hworstell@research.att.com]
>>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:38 AM
>>>To: stuart.kerry@philips.com; stuart@ok-brit.com
>>>Cc: apetrick@widefi.com; hworstell@att.com
>>>Subject: New IEEE 802 Documentation numbering
> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Stuart,
>>>
>>>Please be advised that IEEE 802.11 is unable to meet the new IEEE 802
>>>LMSC Policies and Procedures dated January 2006 with respect to the
> >>new document numbering system until we acquire new software that can
>>>accommodate that numbering scheme.
>>>
>>>Please inform the LMSC of our situation.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Harry Worstell
>>>
>>>
>>>Harry R. Worstell
>>>Sr. Technical Specialist
>>>Communications Technology Research
>>>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>>Vice Chair, IEEE 802.11 Working Group
>>>Room B233, Building 103
>>>180 Park Avenue
>>>P.O. Box 971
>>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6915
>>>Cell +1(973) 727-5564
>>>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5873
>>>EMAIL: hworstell@research.att.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>>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.
>>
>>----------
>>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.