Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation+++tentative result on v10



Thanks, Andrew. I'm mostly happy with your suggestions. I don't fully  
agree with everything, but I would vote Approve on v11.

I really think we should go with v11 instead of v10. If you read the  
documents in full, they are pretty close. However, v11 is pretty v10  
is not fully self-consistent, especially where headlines don't  
exactly match the content. We have in the past seen cases in which a  
national body has taken pieces of IEEE contributions out of context  
and made it look as if we are saying something that we did not  
intend. v10 would make that too easy.

Roger




G'day Paul,

I have processed Roger's comments into a v11 and have attached v11  
with changes marked in red, and a clean version. You already have a  
clean v10. Most of Roger's suggestions improve the document, although  
I have modified a few of his suggestions. He will need to respond  
with his approval of my changes.

I have no idea how you want to handle this late change procedurally  
given that the document is due to Robin Tasker on the 27 Sept.  
Personally, I believe either v10 is good enough but v11 is slightly  
better and clearer. .

Andrew

BTW I assume that you will be sending the document to Robin?????



RM> 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.

Considered below

RM> I am voting Disapprove. I very much appreciate Andrew's excellent  
work and patience, as well as the valuable comments of my EC colleagues.

Thanks ;)

RM> 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.

See below

RM> Comments:

RM> (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.

It was certainly not the intent that all 802 standards be adopted as  
ISO/IEC standards. The 802 WGs always have the choice as to whether  
of not a particular standard should be adopted. This is made clear on  
pp 16 (of attached, the page numbers have changed by one because  
history page removed)

RM> 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.

That said, your proposed language is fine with slight modification  
also based on your comments below, "The agreement should allow the  
adoption of endorsed standards as 8802-x standards"

RM> (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.

Agreed

RM> Remedy:
-Change to "Are 8802-xx standards covered by patent Letters of  
Assurance made to IEEE-SA?"

Changed to "Are 8802-xx standards covered by patent LoA's made to  
IEEE-SA?"

RM> -Likewise, everywhere on Slide 19, change "IPR" to "patent".

Done, also on pp 11

RM> -In the first use of "LoA" on Slide 19, change to "Letter of  
Assurance (LoA)".

Already covered by pp 2

RM> (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.

RM> 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.

Done, your language is nicer

RM> 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"

Done

RM> (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.

Personally, I believe that "endorsement" is not enough. Who cares  
about endorsement? Is endorsement enough under trade rules? If  
endorsement is so great then why haven't we bothered with it in the  
past? Actually this is a complex issue that I would love to talk  
about with you at some point - maybe in Dallas?

RM> 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.

No change requested

RM> (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

Correct, as noted on pp 7

RM> 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."

Changed to "SC6 has started a review with all stakeholders of issues  
related to cooperation with 802" to be consistent with comment below  
and resulting change

RM> -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".

Changed to "SC6 has started a review with all stakeholders of issues  
related to cooperation with 802"

RM> (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.

Good points

RM> 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

I have accepted the spirit of your suggestion but changed it to "Any  
agreement ..." rather than "Process ...".

RM> (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.

I hope you agree that 8802-1 currently contains a lot of technical  
information that does not need to be there. We need to remove this  
info. Presumably the technical part of the technical report would be  
the references to 8802.x and 802.x standards. There is no intent to  
remove this

RM> Remedy:
-On Slide 12, delete "Not contain any technical material"
-Delete Slide 21.

I have softened the language. Have a look

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802- 
sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Friday, 22 September 2006 3:28 PM
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+++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 E

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.