Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment action item
I find myself in agreement with Jose.
I believe that the wording specifically indicating that the EC NOT engage in
technical evaluations, but focus instead on process, was put there for very
I for one, would be the first to admit that I would not consider myself
competent to render any technical judgement on, for example 10G 802.3 PHY
issues, and I think the same principle would cut broadly across the 802 EC.
I would guess that many, if not most, from the wireline side would probably
feel much the same way if asked to render a technical judgement on, for
example technical intricacies in an OFDM/MIMO system.
This is why I believe the EC should NOT be in the business of rendering
judgements on the technical content of WG drafts.
However, there may be a place for some sort of judging with respect to
whether a WG has overstepped the bounds of its PAR, but that would be about
as technical as I think the EC should get, and only if someone else raises
the issue (i.e., in response to an appeal - the EC should not be routinely
looking for technical issues to address in WG business).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Puthenkulam, Jose P
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:50 PM
> To: Paul Nikolich; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
> action item
> Dear Paul, All,
> I've some thoughts to share on this.
> During the conf. call I did hear someone mention that, for technical
> comments the EC members should participate in the Sponsor
> Ballots or in
> some cases WG ballots also as technical experts. I think that is most
> appropriate way to engage technically with regards to the technical
> content of the WG drafts.
> Here is my rationale for this:
> 1.During a motion to move the WG draft to the sponsor ballot stage, if
> technical comments get generated by the EC, then we do not have an
> effective process to deal with them other than the WG letter ballot
> itself. So we should avoid creating more work than necessary here.
> 2.The IEEE Sponsor ballot is the place outside the WG for engaging
> technically and addressing all comments including architectural
> consistency issues etc and matters the EC is interested in overseeing.
> 3.So while I very much feel the EC members should have some technical
> oversight over WG activities including content of the drafts, I think
> that oversight should be undertaken as part of the existing procedures
> we have
> - Approval of PARs
> - Sponsor ballots
> - WG letter ballots when EC members are also WG members and can
> So I feel when a motion is made at the EC to forward the WG draft to
> sponsor ballot, may not be the time for the EC members to engage in
> technical review of the content. Instead the focus should be
> the review
> of the WG ballot procedures and comment resolutions including approval
> rate, disaapproves etc.
> So maybe we should leave the existing wording for OM 3.1.1 as is.
> However, maybe some other place we could add some clarity in terms of
> the technical oversight responsibility if it is not there already.
> Hope this helps,
> Thanks & Best Regards,
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > Paul Nikolich
> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:56 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] OM 3.1.1 LMSC Function, item(e) comment
> action item
> > Mat,
> > Per today's call, I had the action to provide alternative
> > wording to the OM 3.1.1.e "Examine and approve WG draft
> > standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot group; not
> > for technical content.
> > I suggest the deletion of "; not for technical content"
> > Implementing the deletion maintains consistency with the OM
> > 3.1.1.c "Provide procedural and, if necessary, TECHNICAL
> > GUIDANCE to the WG and TAG as it relates to their charters."
> > (emphasis added)
> > Altough the 'technical guidance' component of the EC funtions
> > tends to be secondary to procedural guidance, it is an
> > important component, especially when trying to maintain
> > architectural consistency across a Sponsor which grows to the
> > size and breadth of 802.
> > Regards,
> > --Paul
> > ----------
> > 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.