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

Re: [802SEC] New Model for IEEE Standards Maintenance

(See below)

On 2/2/11 10:32 PM, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:
Hello James,

I think I'd go further than that. IMHO, any complex amendment
is likely to contain errors that make a strict interpretation of its
editing instructions impossible.  (e.g. I'm just about to roll in a
400-page amendment #8.)

When a revision is active,   the editor can highlight these inconsistencies/conflicts
either to the group responsible for making changes,  or to the balloters by comments
in the draft revision.

I'm not sure how this should be treated in the case of an Edition.
If the editor is aware of a conflict,  should he highlight this,  or silently
ignore it?
There absolutely has to be an appropriate process in place to handle this situation. To silently ignore it is not an appropriate choice. My experience with publications editors is that they are conservative about questions of this sort and will not do that.
Mere highlighting is also not appropriate.
The appropriate thing to do at that point is to call for a technical judgment from the WG representative. There is a choice of several things that can be done. What can be done is dependent on whether the edition is being edited as part of an open project or not.
Lets look first at the no project case:
    1) Possibility 1, suspend the production of the edition.
2) Possibility 2, get an informal technical judgment which resolves the issue and the edition can proceed 3) Possibility 3, get a balloted technical judgment (Interpretation Request) which addresses the issue 4) If the outcome of the Interpretation request is that there is an ambiguity then suspend the edition work until a corrigendum resolves the issue. If the edition is being prepared as part of a draft to be balloted then things get easier. The issue can get highlighted and (with the help of the WG technical rep) can be expressed in the draft in such a way that it gets resolved during the balloting of the draft. This also requires that the WG technical rep put the entire WG on notice that this issue is up for decision deep in the bowels of an amendment draft. That is something that shouldn't be any great burden.
This is separate from the question of whether the editor correctly interpreted
the instructions in the amendment.
I agree.

Best regards,
    Geoff Thompson

Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS Tel: +44 1954 204 609 (office)
Tel: +44 792 008 4900 (mobile)
Skype: adrian_stephens
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:54 AM
To: Grow, Bob
Subject: Re: [802SEC] New Model for IEEE Standards Maintenance


The only issue I have with editions is that they should still have some
technical review to make sure that no mistakes were made.

Although we try hard, when you have 3 amendments modifying the same
location in a base standard, it may take some technical expertise to
make sure everything came out right.

It could be as simple as the Sponsor assigning a group of reviewers to
assist the editors.  Then it could be a simple approval by the Sponsor
that based on the opinion of the reviewers, the edition is OK for

James Gilb

On 02/02/2011 09:01 AM, Grow, Bob wrote:

I have been working with publication staff on publishing all amendments, corrigenda and errata as editions.  Publication staff has been generally favorable to this, the only identified negative is product pricing (why do I have to pay for all 3500 pages of 802.3 when I already have it and only want the new 50 pages).

If you or others are interested, I can provide details on what I've proposed.  I'm certainly willing to accept support, and constructive criticism as well for any IEEE-SA participants.

Your proposal to do editions at least every three mitigates the pricing issue because a revision presents the same situation.


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:03 AM
Subject: [802SEC] New Model for IEEE Standards Maintenance

Reflecting on this new model, I have a couple of observations.

As I said on the conference call, I don't believe that the changes as
outlined are of any great benefit (or dis-benefit for that matter) to 802,
which seems to be a wasted opportunity when I believe that a simple change
COULD be made that would actually be of benefit.

I have never understood the point of the 3-year revision rule - apparently
it is OK to have a gozillion amendments approved in years 1-3 after a
revision, and all is OK for those 3 years, but suddenly at the end of year
3, it is not-OK anymore. That makes no sense to me whatever, and will make
even less sense once the revision cycle moves to 10 years.

What would make far more sense to me would be to lose the 3-year revision
rule, and instead, impose a requirement to produce an Edition when there are
N amendments (where N probably equals 3) that haven't previously been
incorporated into a revision or an edition. That would materially improve my
situation in 802.1, as it would remove an arbitrary requirement to revise
after 3 years when an editorial roll-up would be entirely sufficient to the
needs both of the readership and the WG. Producing editions on a regular
basis is in any case something that I try to do with 802.1Q already.


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.