Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
G'day Andrew -
For me, the biggest problem with that slide is the "802 wants.." wording
used in the main bullet of both columns, which sets entirely the wrong
emphasis on the relationship in my view. That is certainly not something
that 802.1 wants; indeed our current position is that we see no value in
the ISO relationship as far as the 802.1 standards are concerned, which is
why we no longer launder them through SC6.
On the "better standards..." front (heading and left hand column), I
believe that this concept is entirely spurious; the place where the
expertise in LAN, MAN, WLAN, PAN,...(X)AN standardisation resides,
worldwide, is 802; the idea that by exposing our work to a wider group of
people that have arguably less (maybe no) expertise in the subject matter
we will improve their quality is politically enticing, but is, I'm afraid,
practically laughable. Back in the '80s/'90s, when 802.1 used to submit the
Bridging standards to ISO, and when SC6 was far more active than it is
today, our experience was that the process did not improve the quality of
our standards at all, but it did involve us in considerable additional time
and effort to make sure that the process didn't actually reduce the quality
of our standards. And of course, we've just experienced exactly that
effect, but in a much more extreme form, with the recent debacle over
802.11. So I would like that whole concept to be removed from the document
altogether.
I can see that, in some markets, there might be an advantage in applying
the ISO label, particularly if there are competing standards in the field.
However, that just isn't the case with most of what we do; the only serious
competing non-802 standard in the LAN (...etc.) area that I can remember
was FDDI, and that is long gone. Yes, it could happen again, so the ISO
track could be useful to us if it does, but in reality, WTO rules or no, if
we're the only game in town, it doesn't matter very much that we only have
an IEEE standard label. I haven't heard any of the participants in 802.1
complaining that they can't sell switches because the 802.1 standards don't
have the ISO seal of approval.
So I think the wording of slide 9 needs to be considerably watered down,
replacing the entire slide along these lines:
802 overall goal for its relationship with ISO/IEC is clarification of
"international" standardisation status where that is important in
particular situations/markets
An 8802-x version of an 802.x standard can, in some cases, enable wider
acceptance
* The WTO and other organisations give special status to "international
standards", particularly in trade
* The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear
* It is even possible that IEEE 802.x standards may qualify as
"international standards", but this is untested
* However, an ISO/IEC standard is well accepted as an international standard
* In some cases, IEEE 802 standards may compete with other, equivalent
standards developed in other standards fora
* Therefore, a benefit for IEEE 802 of any relationship with ISO/IEC is a
mechanism to gain a clear "international standard" status for IEEE 802.x
standards where the needs of particular working groups, or particular
market conditions, dictate.
Regards,
Tony
At 10:44 09/09/2006, you wrote:
>G'day Tony
>
>It was certainly not the intent to say that all 802.x standards should
>be sent through ISO/IEC. Indeed, slide 17 explicitly allows 802 to veto
>the ISO/IEC standardisation of any 802.x standard for any reason. Some
>802 WG's would presumably effectively veto any ISO/IEC standardisation
>by not participating in the 8802-1 process in any way. That said, what
>rewording would make the text on slide 9 (right column) more palatable?
>
>Andrew
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
>On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Saturday, 9 September 2006 6:48 PM
>To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
>17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement
>regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
>
>I'm changing my vote to "Disapprove" in support of Carl's comments
>below. I believe the problem could be fixed either by striking the
>offending text or by re-wording it to make it clear that some (but not
>not all) 802 WGs consider the ISO label to be desirable in the markets
>that they serve.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 01:55 09/09/2006, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> >DISAPPROVE - (most strenuously!) (With all due respect to Andrew Miles
>
> >and the effort he's expended.)
> >
> >In addition to wanting my name spelled correctly in the revisions list
> >:-) I have the following problem:
> >
> >The text on slide 9 - "802 wants an 8802-x version of 802.x standards
> >to enable the widest acceptance The WTO and other organisations give
> >special status to "international standards", particularly in trade The
> >definition of an "international standard" is not always clear It is
> >even possible that IEEE 802.x standards may qualify as "international
> >standards", but this is untested However, an ISO/IEC standard is well
> >accepted as an international standard Therefore, a benefit for 802 of
> >any relationship with ISO/IEC is a mechanism to gain certain
> >"international standard" status for IEEE 802.x standards"
> >
> >is, in my opinion as a member of the SA BoG, counter to IEEE-SA goals
> >to be postured as a truly international SDO.
> >
> >Since IEEE has been recognized with Sector Memberships in ITU in the
> >same category with ("on equal status with") ISO, I think that the
> >entire message that this text sends that we (IEEE-SA) somehow "need"
> >ISO to achieve international status for/acceptance of our standars is
> >inaccurate and damaging to the goals of IEEE-SA as I understand them.
> >
> >I would also point out that 802.16 has been meeting with quite a bit of
>
> >success in getting their standards recognized internationally by
> >incorporation of references thereto in ITU Recommendations and other
> >documents.
> >
> >Thus, while I have no problem with WGs that might *want* to work
> >cooperatively with ISO/IEC, I *do* have a problem with the way the
> >offending text implies that working through ISO/IEC is in *any* way
> >*necessary* for IEEE Standards to gain international status and
>acceptance.
> >
> >I urge all of my colleagues on the EC to join me in voting DISAPPROVE
> >until this problem has been rectified.
> >
> >I think the document could (and does) suggest ways to work with ISO/IEC
> >*without* the inclusion of the offending text/concepts.
> >
> >Finally, it is my understanding that "Position Statements" to outside
> >entities require higher approval in IEEE than the 802 EC ... That is
> >why
> >802.18 has "disclaimer boilerplate" in its regulatory filings and is
> >careful to avoid the use of the "P-word" ...
> >
> >Regards,
> >Carl R. Stevenson
> >President and Chief Technology Officer
> >WK3C Wireless LLC
> >Where wireless is a passion, as well as a profession (SM)
> >----------------------------
> >Wireless Standards, Regulatory & Design Consulting Services
> >4991 Shimerville Road
> >Emmaus, PA 18049-4955 USA
> >cellular: +1 610 841 6180 (normally best means of contact)
> >voip: +1 610 624 3755 ("SkypeIn" when on-line - particularly
>outside of
> >US)
> >phone: +1 610 965 8799 (backup - least reliable, slowest response)
> >fax: +1 484 214 0204 (e-Fax to my e-mail account)
> >e-mail: wk3c@wk3c.com
> >web: http://www.wk3c.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:09 PM
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > > Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> > > 17SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC position statement
> > > regarding the SC6 review of 8802-1
> > >
> > > Dear EC Members,
> > >
> > > Per the below email I sent you last Friday
> > > (http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg08457.html) , a revised version
> > > of the IEEE 802 position statement on the review of the 8802-1 and
> > > related documents by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
> > >
> > > Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached position
> > > statement (appropriately edited to remove the "DRAFT" and "Change
> > > History" text) Moved-Tony Jeffree Seconded-Mat Sherman
> > >
> > > Please cast your vote as soon as possible. The ballot closes the
> > > earlier of either 17 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member has
>
> > > cast a vote.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --Paul Nikolich
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> > > Subject: [802SEC] request for input from 802 EC members regarding
> > > 8802-1 review
> > > From: Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> > > Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:40:57 -0400
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > 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.
>
>----------
>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.