Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation+++tentative result on v10
Paul,
I'm sorry that other commitments have kept me disengaged from this
discussion until now. Nevertheless, I am voting with four days still
left in the ballot period and hope for consideration of my comments.
I am voting Disapprove. I very much appreciate Andrew's excellent
work and patience, as well as the valuable comments of my EC
colleagues. However, I still see significant weaknesses with the
proposal and cannot vote to approve. However, I would vote Approve if
my comments were accepted. I have tried to make my explanations and
remedies clear and thorough. I have indicated that most of these
comments are editorial, but I still think they are substantive and
(except where noted) they are all part of my disapprove vote.
Comments:
(1) [Editorial] The Slide 11 title says "8802-1 should be modified so
that an ISO/IEC standard can always be achieved" is an inappropriate
title. Some would infer that this means we are insisting that all 802
standards are adopted as ISO/IEC standards. Others would infer that
it is a statement that IEEE insists that the only acceptable process
is one that guarantees that every 802 proposal into ISO/IEC is
adopted. Either way, this comes across as an arrogant approach that
would inhibit support within ISO/IEC. Furthermore, the title does not
reflect the content of the slide, which proposes much less demanding
language. That's why I call this comment editorial.
Remedy:
-Change "8802-1 should be modified so that an ISO/IEC standard can
always be achieved" to ""Process should be modified to encourage
adoption of endorsed standards as 8802-x standards".
-Make the same change on Slide 4.
(2) [Editorial] Slide 6 says "Are 8802-xx standards covered by IPR
statements made to 802?" But the term "IPR" is too broad here; the
correct word is "patents". Furthermore, no IPR statements are made to
802; instead, Letters of Assurance are filed with IEEE-SA.
Remedy:
-Change to "Are 8802-xx standards covered by patent Letters of
Assurance made to IEEE-SA?"
-Likewise, everywhere on Slide 19, change "IPR" to "patent".
-In the first use of "LoA" on Slide 19, change to "Letter of
Assurance (LoA)".
(3) [Editorial] On Slide 13, "Specify only 802 has the authority to
make changes to the 8802-x versions of 802.x standards" is
inappropriate from an ISO/IEC perspective. ISO/IEC cannot and will
not grant to 802 the right to change 8802 standards arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the title does not reflect the content of the slide,
which proposes much less demanding language. That's why I call this
comment editorial.
Remedy:
-Change to "Specify that changes to the 8802-x versions of 802.x
standards require IEEE 802 concurrence"
-Make the same change in Slide 12.
On Slide 18, change "Assuming 802 becomes the authority for all
changes to 8802-x standards" to "Assuming 802 has approval authority
for all changes to 8802-x standards"
(4) [Technical, not required] The process described on Slide 16 is,
in my view, awkward, redundant and impractical. I don't understand
why ISO/IEC should have to run one ballot to endorse the 802 standard
and a second ballot to adopt it as an 8802 standard. If we think the
second step is required, then we must think that the endorsement
process doesn't satisfy the needs. So why bother with in at all? It's
a lot of trouble, and it would force a long delay before adoption.
Remedy: I am not proposing a remedy at this time, because I think
that 802 is too far along with its decision-making process to
reconsider. If it were earlier in the process, I would suggest that
propose to endorse either the endorsement process or the adoption
process, but not both. Personally, I'd prefer a modified version of
endorsement.
(5) [Editorial] Slide 4 says "SC6 has started a review of the 8802-1
cooperation agreement". This is not the whole story. 6N13127 is
seeking comments three items:
1. 6N11917: Procedures for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1 and IEEE 802 LMSC
Cooperative Working
2. TR 8802-1:2001
3. All relevant resolutions
Remedy:
-Change "SC6 has started a review of the 8802-1 cooperation
agreement" to "SC6, via 6N13127, is seeking comments on the method of
cooperation between SC6/WG1 and IEEE 802."
-Likewise: Change title of Slide 8 from "SC6 has started a review to
resolve the problems with the 8802-1 cooperation agreement" to "SC6
has started a review to resolve the problems with the 802 cooperation".
(6) [Technical] My Comment 5 is related to a broader problem that is
a bit harder to solve. Our document revolves around suggestions to
change 8802-1 so as to improve the process. But the request for
comments doesn't force us to consider 8802-1 as the only venue for
the process. I believe that 8802-1 is the wrong venue to describe the
process. In my view, 8802-1 was, from the start, an inappropriate
place to define procedures. It's a Technical Report, not a procedural
agreement between IEEE and ISO/IEC. There is no way, procedurally, to
turn 8802-1 into a true agreement. There is, for instance, no place
for IEEE to sign it.
Remedy: I think it is too late to suggest an alternative type of
document to contain the process. However, we can at least stop
insisting that 8802-1 be the right venue. If we make the following
changes, we will still be specifying the kind of process we want, but
we won't saying that process needs to be defined in 8802-1:
-On Slide 11, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title
-On Slide 12, change "8802-1 should..." to "Process should..."
-On Slide 13, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title
-On Slide 13, change "This requires 8802-1 to specify" to "This
requires process to specify"
-On Slide 14, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in both
places in the Proposed resolution column
-On Slide 15, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title
-On Slide 16, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title
-On Slide 16, change "modified process for 8802-1" to "modified process"
-On Slide 17, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in both
places in the Proposed resolution column
-On Slide 18, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in the
Proposed resolution column
-On Slide 19, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title
-On Slide 20, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in the
Proposed resolution column
(7) [Technical] Slide 21 says "8802-1 should not contain any
technical material". Likewise, Slide 12 says 8802-1 should "Not
contain any technical material." It's true that 8802-1 has both
technical and procedural content, and that's not good. But this
proposal would remove the wrong part. It really doesn't make any
sense for us to recommend that ISO/IEC maintain a "Technical Report"
and insist that it be without technical content.
Remedy:
-On Slide 12, delete "Not contain any technical material"
-Delete Slide 21.
Roger
On Sep 21, 2006, at 02:34 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> Dear EC,
>
> The tentative result on version 10 is shown below. If you have not
> explicitly cast a vote on version 10, please cast your vote as soon
> as possible, as we need to submit the recommendation to SC6 shortly.
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
> Vote categories: APP DIS ABS DNV
> --------------------------------------------------
> VC Mat Sherman APPv10
> VC Pat Thaler APPv10
> ES Buzz Rigsbee APPv10
> RS Bob O'Hara DNVv10
> TR John Hawkins APPv10
> 01 Tony Jeffree APPv10
> 03 Bob Grow APPv10
> 11 Stuart Kerry APPv10
> 15 Bob Heile DNVv10
> 16 Roger Marks DNVv10
> 17 Mike Takefman APPv10
> 18 Mike Lynch APPv10
> 19 Steve Shellhammer APPv10
> 21 Vivek Gupta APPv10
> 22 Carl Stevenson APPv10
> ME Geoff Thompson does not have a vote, endorses v10
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 15 TOTALS 12 0 0 03
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:23 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
>
>
>> 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.