Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
Just to be explicit, I vote APPROVE on v10 and ask all other EC members to
likewise approve the document ASAP due to the deadline.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:07 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: Geoff Thompson; wk3c@wk3c.com; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
Andrew-
Thank you.
That does it for me.
My recommendation to the EC is to vote APPROVE on V10 as enclosed.
Best regards,
Geoff
At 07:02 PM 9/20/2006 , Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
>G'day Geoff
>
>Oooops, missed that one
>
>Steve, could you live with this version? Please say yes! If not, could
>I chat with you later today in Melbourne?
>
>Other EC members, could you please vote ASAP?
>
>Andrew
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 11:43 AM
>To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
>Cc: wk3c@wk3c.com; Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
>than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
>
>Andrew-
>
>Thanks for the fast turn-around. Comments as I look through it.
>
>Slide 4: Good change Approved
>
>Slide 7 Not wild about it still, but I can live with it
>
>Slide 9 Please complete the change in last bullet
> (i.e. from "status" to "recognition")
>
>Slide 11: Good change Approved
>
>So you are only one word away from my APPROVE vote.
>
>Thanks,
>
> Geoff
>
>
>At 06:04 PM 9/20/2006 , Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
> >G'day Carl,
> >
> >I responded to Geoff's suggestions with a new version (attached).
> >Geoff
>
> >has not yet confirmed it, but I believe his comments have now been
> >resolved (I hope so anyway). Do you the modifications satisfy you?
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
> >On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:03 AM
> >To: 'Geoff Thompson'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> >than
>
> >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> >
> >Colleagues,
> >
> >Sorry ... But upon reviewing Geoff's comments I have to agree with
> >the points he makes (some of which I hadn't viewed in the same light
> >until Geoff's comments.
> >
> >Therefore, I feel that I have to change my previous approve to
> >DISAPPROVE.
> >If Geoff's comments are satisfied I will change my vote back to
>approve.
> >
> >I would have responded to Geoff's comments sooner, but for the time
> >offset here in Australia.
> >
> >Carl
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:10 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> >
> >Paul/Colleagues-
> >
> >I have to join Carl and recommend that these slides be DISAPPROVED
> >
> >Please examine these points carefully. I believe they are worthy of
> >consideration
> >
> >The text, early on (slide 4) says:
> > - . 8802-1 should be modified so that international
> >standardisation can always be achieved ...
> >
> >...which (were there an appropriate WTO case and were I supporting
> >the "other" side) I would take as evidence for presentation to the
> >judging
> >body: "Here, the IEEE even admits that they are NOT a lower case
> >international standard unless they are blessed by ISO/IEC.
> >
> >I do not think we want to say that
> >I do not think that is the case
> >I think is not an appropriate position for 802 to take wrt the
> >position
>
> >that the IEEE-SA takes for its standards.
> >
> >Slide 7 statements open a Pandora's box of issues that might well be
> >nurturing to a relationship with SC6.
> >
> >Slide 9, last bullet
> >Change:
> >A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with
> >ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of establishing
> >"international standard" status for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC
> >using a simple documented cooperation process.
> >
> >To:
> >A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with
> >ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of widening
> >"international
>
> >standard" recognition for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a
> >simple documented cooperation process
> >
> >Slide 11:
> >The title:
> >"8802-1 should be modified so that international standardisation can
> >always be achieved ..."
> >should be changed per my critique of slide 4 above.
> >
> >I support slides 12 through 21
> >
> >Please carefully consider these items and reconsider your vote
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Geoff Thompson
> >
> >At 04:23 PM 9/19/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > >Dear EC Members,
> > >
> > >A revised version of the IEEE 802 recommendation on the 8802-1 and
> > >related documents requested by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
> > >
> > >Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached SC6
> > >recommendation version 07 dated 19SEP06 (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 25 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member
> > >has cast a
> >vote.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >--Paul Nikolich
> > >----------
> > >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.
> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
> >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> > boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C6DD0C.8A1CF804"
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> >than
>
> >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:28:48 +0800
> >Message-ID:
> ><70CDE339FEE838489EE9580C31AD5765019E79DD@xmb-hkg-414.apac.cisco.com>
> >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
> >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> >Thread-Topic: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> >than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6
> >recommendation
> >Thread-Index: Acbc8vrPcRPNsX6kQAaCBqPcaDpxdAADcX2AAAKeO0A=
> >From: "Andrew Myles \(amyles\)" <amyles@cisco.com>
> >To: "Andrew Myles \(amyles\)" <amyles@cisco.com>,
> > "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortel.com>,
> > "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>
> >Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
> >
> >G'day all
> >
> >After further reflecting on Geoff's comments, I think we can make
> >some simple changes to satisfy his concerns. Geoff?
> >
> >The changes are fully documented on the Change History page of the
> >attached document but briefly they are:
> >
> >* Changed "8802-1 should be modified so that international
> >standardisation can always be achieved" to "8802-1 should be modified
> >so that an ISO/IEC standard can always be achieved" on both pp 4 & pp
>11.
> >This avoids the issue highlighted by Geoff by not equating
> >"international standardisation" with the what ISO/IEC do.
> >
> >* Changed "establishing" to "widening" exactly as suggested by Geoff
> >
> >* Softened language on pp 7 with "Recent attempts to use the
> >endorsement process defined in 8802-1 for 802.11ma approval failed
> >after SC6 NBs did not receive Liaisons from 802.11 WG"
> >
> >* Removed "Probably because it definitely gives an 802.x document
> >"standards status"" on pp7 based on comments by Geoff on pp 4 and pp
> >9
> >
> >I hope we are now over the line!!!!!!! This is where I start praying
> >;)
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andrew Myles (amyles)
> >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:44 AM
> >To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Paul Nikolich
> >Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> >than
>
> >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> >
> >G'day Geoff,
> >
> >I believe Carl's issues have now been resolved and he has now voted
> >APPROVE.
> >
> >You have interpreted "8802-1 should be modified so that international
> >standardisation can always be achieved" to mean "the IEEE even admits
> >that they are NOT a lower case international standard unless they are
> >blessed by ISO/IEC". I believe you have misinterpreted what the
> >sentence actually says. It only says that the process in 8802-1
> >should be defined so that an ISO/IEC international standard results.
> >Alternatively, it says that the "endorsement process" provides no
> >value
>
> >to anyone. The evidence is that the endorsement process has never
> >been used. It does not say that IEEE cannot achieve international
> >standardisation in another way (sorry for a double negative),
> >including
>
> >by recognition of IEEE as a truly "international" SDO.
> >
> >You have interpreted "A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative
> >relationship with ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the
> >option of establishing "international standard" status for an 802.x
> >standard through ISO/IEC using a simple documented cooperation
> >process" as implying that we believe IEEE is not an international
> >SDO. However, I believe you have neglected to parse the important
> >phrase "... through ISO/IEC". The sentence only talks about
> >establishing an international standard through ISO/IEC. It does not
> >say anything about or disallow other ways of establishing an
international standard.
> >
> >In both cases we could improve the language but I believe any risk of
> >misinterpretation is small because we have made our view about the
> >IEEE
>
> >status as an international SDO relative to other SDOs and the reasons
> >for potentially using ISO/IEC clear on pp9 as follows:
> >* "The WTO & similar organisations give special status to
> >"international standards" that assists global acceptance"
> >* "The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear,
> >however we note that both ITU-R & ITU-T have recognised IEEE as an
> >international SDO by granting IEEE membership in the same category as
> >ISO"
> >* "Nevertheless, an ISO/IEC standard may be more acceptable to some
> >stakeholders as an "international standard""
> >
> >On pp7 the only item of potential difficulty I cam see is "Recent
> >attempts to use the endorsement process defined in 8802-1 for
> >802.11ma approval failed when multiple Liaison statements to SC6 were
> >not forwarded to the SC6 NBs". This statement is entirely true and
> >was merely being used to show there are practical difficulties in the
> >existing process. I guess the SC6 Secretariat could be upset by this
> >statement although they are not named, but they would need to be very
> >"thin skinned".
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG]
> >On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> >Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 6:10 AM
> >To: Paul Nikolich
> >Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
> >than
>
> >25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
> >
> >Paul/Colleagues-
> >
> >I have to join Carl and recommend that these slides be DISAPPROVED
> >
> >Please examine these points carefully. I believe they are worthy of
> >consideration
> >
> >The text, early on (slide 4) says:
> > - * 8802-1 should be modified so that international
> >standardisation can always be achieved ...
> >
> >...which (were there an appropriate WTO case and were I supporting
> >the "other" side) I would take as evidence for presentation to the
> >judging
> >body: "Here, the IEEE even admits that they are NOT a lower case
> >international standard unless they are blessed by ISO/IEC.
> >
> >I do not think we want to say that
> >I do not think that is the case
> >I think is not an appropriate position for 802 to take wrt the
> >position
>
> >that the IEEE-SA takes for its standards.
> >
> >Slide 7 statements open a Pandora's box of issues that might well be
> >nurturing to a relationship with SC6.
> >
> >Slide 9, last bullet
> >Change:
> >A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with
> >ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of establishing
> >"international standard" status for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC
> >using a simple documented cooperation process.
> >
> >To:
> >A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with
> >ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of widening
> >"international
>
> >standard" recognition for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a
> >simple documented cooperation process
> >
> >Slide 11:
> >The title:
> >"8802-1 should be modified so that international standardisation can
> >always be achieved ..."
> >should be changed per my critique of slide 4 above.
> >
> >I support slides 12 through 21
> >
> >Please carefully consider these items and reconsider your vote
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Geoff Thompson
> >
> >At 04:23 PM 9/19/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > >Dear EC Members,
> > >
> > >A revised version of the IEEE 802 recommendation on the 8802-1 and
> > >related documents requested by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
> > >
> > >Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached SC6
> > >recommendation version 07 dated 19SEP06 (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 25 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member
> > >has
> >cast a vote.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >--Paul Nikolich
> > >----------
> > >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.