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

Re: [802SEC] Proposal for Editions

Bob -

I agree with much of what you have said here. However, given feedback
received from implementers in 802.1, I don't believe that *just* publishing
amendments/corrigenda as consolidations serves our readership either. The
complexity of our standards, and the sometimes intricate way that an
amendment inserts itself into the base, means that for the implementer to
have a clear picture of what an amendment does to the base document, he/she
needs to see the deltas; in order to have a clear picture of what the final
end result is, he/she needs to see the consolidation.

So I believe that publishing amendments/corrigenda as deltas to the base
standard is necessary IN ADDITION TO publishing the consolidation, and
preferably publishing the consolidation at the same time or soon after. We
are currently processing several amendments to Q that are following this
model; I am hoping that we will be able to publish a consolidation very soon
after we are done with the individual amendments. I know that this creates
an additional load on the editing staff, but on the other hand, it actually
delivers what the implementers need.


On 27 September 2011 16:28, Grow, Bob <> wrote:

> Paul:
> While a reasonable IEEE-SA wide policy, it does little to help the most
> active 802 standards.
> 1.  We have already learned that we have to create consolidations in some
> WGs simply to manage the continuing amendment of the standard.  (This policy
> will not change that.  If this were a rule rather than a pubs policy, then
> we would be in violation of the statement that a consolidation shall only be
> prepared for a revision.  But if it is read only referring to pubs staff
> then there isn't an issue, only no help to our needs.)
> 2.  Four months is a significant problem.  In my 802.3 experience it has
> been difficult to find a period of 1 year in which to do a revision.  The 3
> year, 3 amendment rule has to be satisfied and some of our standards will
> have a half dozen or more approved amendments/corrigenda and a few new
> amendment projects in process when we try to slot a revision into the flow
> of new projects.  While we can typically give a 4 month heads-up for when we
> plan a revision, it will typically be triggered when the last amendment to
> be included in the revision is approved.  (No new amendments are expected to
> complete within a year or so.)  At that point, the latest amendment needs to
> be prepared for publication and then consolidated into the revision draft,
> then maintenance changes need to be consolidated into the draft in
> preparation to go to WG ballot.  Either volunteers have to merge the
> approved draft into the staff prepared revision draft (with publication
> changes possibly being missed),!
>  or we have to find a longer gap into which the revision can be slotted, or
> staff has to be willing to accelerate the consolidation of a virtually
> complete amdnement/corrigenda.
> Fortunately, publication staff has been willing to work with us in
> recognition of these needs, but the policy certainly doesn't specify what we
> need.
> On the other hand, if all amendments and corrigenda were published as
> consolidations (editions) pubs staff would not have to handle the
> amendment/corrigenda twice (publish and then consolidate), our balloters and
> users of the standard would not be faced with trying to make sense of a
> standard composed of a big set of documents with stacked changes and order
> specific changes, and we would be making fewer errors by consistently having
> a solid single base standard (not a base standard with separately published
> amendments and corrigenda that are part of the standard).
> --Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
>] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:48 AM
> Subject: [802SEC] Proposal for Editions
> Dear EC members,
> Attached is a proposal from the SA regarding a guideline for consolidations
> (also known as editions or roll-ups).  I've reviewed it and it looks like a
> reasonable process. The one gap I would like filled is the time for the SA
> to respond to a WG Chair 'request for consolidation' be defined (one week,
> perhaps).
> Please review the guideline and provide feedback to the EC reflector and
> Karen McCabe.  Thank you.
> 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.