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

Re: [802SEC] Proposal for Editions


I would focus on a specific aspect of this.
When a standard has a non-trivial number of approved parts it is extremely difficult for voters to evaluate additional drafts. Having to consider a large number of documents when voting on drafts is a significant disservice to our balloting reviewers. So, again, just having consolidations a base text for revisions doesn't deal with the critical issue in 802.


On 510//11 5:44 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
I should have added to WGs where a number of amendments to a
single base standard are being processed simultaneously, as has been the
case in 802.1 for some while, the availability of an up-to-date
consolidation of all published material considerably aids the development of
further amendments. So for me, focusing the generation of consolidations
solely on the need for base text for a revision only deals with half (or
maybe much less) of the problem.


On 5 October 2011 11:27, Tony Jeffree<>  wrote:

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:


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

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).


-----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.



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.