Re: [802SEC] Draft 802.16 maintenance PARs for Friday EC agenda
Thanks for your comments. I also appreciate the earlier advice you gave me in planning the approach to revising and splitting the standard. It was really helpful.
I believe that the 802.16 Working Group has the view that 802.16M is the best number for the new standard and would be the least confusing option. According to the proposal, approval of the resulting standards would supercede 802.16m, with the core content of the superceded 802.16m amendment flowing into the 802.16M standard. Since the material is widely known in the world as "802.16m", we think that "802.16M" would be the least confusing way to number the result.
Following our earlier discussion, I did discuss this proposal at length with the NesCom administrator. After taking a few days to confer with senior staff members, she called to say that she did support the proposed numbering scheme. I later reviewed the proposal with the NesCom chair, who also expressed support for it.
I've also discussed the proposed numbering scheme with our staff liaison. She recommended that I include a message to NesCom taking note of the IEEE-SA Project Numbering Policy's exceptions clause, including the statement that "Different project numbering taxonomies may also be considered by NesCom at the recommendation of staff under special circumstances." She also suggested that I provide NesCom with an explanation of the situation and the reason for the number request.
I'll try to find some time to meet with you and see if I can explain the WG's reasoning in more details.
On 2011/03/16, at 08:51 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
> 1. There already is an 802.16m amendment project and creating a new standard 802.16M is very confusing to users of the standard as well as to case insensitive search. I doubt NesCom or the Nescom administrator will allow the number 802.16M.
> 2. While 802.1 has an exemption on numbering (grandfathering their numbering convention that existed prior to the current numbering policy), 802.16 cannot depend on being able to get a similar exemption to violate the numbering conventions enforced on all other standards groups.
> 3. Because 802.16M is co-contingent on 802.16 revision, and the number 802.16M is used in the proposed revision PAR, it could cause problems for the revision project.
> See the IEEE-SA Project Numbering Policy at: https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/init/parnum.pdf
> Therefore, I will oppose both PARs unless numbering is changed.
> FYI, if present during NesCom consideration, I would speak against approval; and if this numbering were able to get through NesCom, I would oppose at the SASB.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:29 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] Draft 802.16 maintenance PARs for Friday EC agenda
> EC Colleagues,
> The 802.16 Working Group would like to place two maintenance PARs on the Friday EC agenda, per the 48-hour rule in subclause 12.2 of the LMSC Operations Manual:
> "At the discretion of the IEEE 802 LMSC Chair, PARs for ordinary items (e.g., Maintenance PARs) and PAR changes essential to the orderly conduct of business (e.g., division of existing work items or name changes to harmonize with equivalent ISO JTC-1 work items) may be placed on the Sponsor agenda if delivered to Sponsor members 48 hours in advance."
> Here are the two PARs:
> * Draft PAR for the Revision of IEEE Std 802.16
> * Draft PAR for IEEE P802.16M
> In essence, the proposal is to initiate a revision of IEEE Std 802.16 and divide the standard into two separate documents.
> cc: 802.16 reflector
> 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.