Re: [802SEC] request for input from 802 EC members regarding 8802-1 review
G'day J Lemon,
Excellent point. As a "wireless head" I forgot about those pesky wired
networks ;)
I have changed the draft
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: J Lemon [mailto:jlemon@ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, 2 September 2006 5:47 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: Andrew Myles
Subject: Re: [802SEC] request for input from 802 EC members regarding
8802-1 review
This looks very good to me. My only (very minor) comment is to change
the the Slide 20 text of "802 now develops a range of wired & wireless
layer 1 & 2 standards for PANs, LANs, MANs & WANs (& possibly RANs)" to
"802 now develops a range of wired & wireless layer 1 & 2 standards for
PANs, LANs, MANs, RANs, & WANs".
802 doesn't just possibly define RANs; it does define at least one RAN
explicitly, and many others implicitly. 802.17 is specificied to support
rings of at least 2000 km, providing at least one explicit RAN. A
bridged network of 802.3 and/or 802.16 provides at least one example of
an implicitly defined RAN.
Paul Nikolich wrote:
> Dear EC Members,
>
> In an e-mail sent to this reflector two weeks ago a process was
outlined to develop an IEEE 802 LMSC position on potential revisions to
ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001, which documents a cooperation process between
IEEE 802 LMSC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1.
>
> Since that time a small group has contributed to a draft position IEEE
802 LMSC statement for submission to Robin Tasker (editor of 8802-1) by
27 Sept 06. Andrew Myles coordinated the activity and developed the
draft position statement in the attached powerpoint document.
Contributions were received from Geoff Thompson, Steve Mills, Pat
Thaler, David Law, Andrew Myles, Gary Robinson, Bob Pritchard and Paul
Nikolich. The draft position does not necessarily represent the views of
all contributors.
>
> The original plan was to have a teleconference next week to discuss
the position statement. However, the lack of response from the EC (and,
presumably, their WG/TAG membership) suggests this is probably not a
useful exercise. The lack of response is not surprising because,
although the the relationship with ISO/IEC is important, it is "esoteric
standards work", orthogonal to the interests of most Working Group
members.
>
> A slightly modified process to approve this document will now be
followed:
>
> a.. The draft position statement is attached to this e-mail for
comments by the 802 EC. Comments should be sent to the 802 EC reflector
and cc'ed to Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com). The closing date for
comments is 5pm ET on Thursday, 7 Sept 06.
> b.. Andrew Myles will generate an updated version of the draft
position statement based on these comments by 7am ET on Friday, 8 Sept
06.
> c.. The 8 Sept 06 version will be sent out for EC approval via an
802 EC e-mail ballot on 8 Sept 06. The ballot will close on 17 Sept 06.
> d.. If the EC ballot fails, Andrew Myles will make further changes
early in the week during the IEEE 802.11 WG interim session in Melbourne
and a second 802 EC e-mail ballot will be issued with a closing date of
26 Sept 06.
> e.. I want to avoid a second EC e-mail ballot--hence the 1-7 Sept
comment period--please, please, please provide your input prior to 5 pm
ET 7 Sept 06.
> f.. Assuming a position statement is approved, it will be sent to
Robin Tasker on 26 Sept 06.
> Andrew Myles is available to discuss the draft position statement at
any time after 5am (3pm ET) any day next week on +61 2 84461010 (W) or
+61 418 656587 (M).
>
> ----------
> 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.