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

Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs



I support David's position on this.
Thr requirement was put in for good reason.
That reasoning and the rationale behind it has increased over the years, not diminished.
The requirement needs to stay.

Geoff

On 1310//12 11:15 AM, Law, David wrote:
Hi James,

I've always read the requirement in subclause 11.2 'IEEE 802 LMSC Approval' of the IEEE 802 Operations manual requiring '.. a work plan for the development of managed object definitions, either as part of the PAR or as a part of an additional PAR' as being met by stating what the plan is, and if the development of managed object definitions will be part of the PAR or another PAR.

For example in the recent IEEE P802.3bp draft PAR and 5 Criteria email<http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg15385.html>  it is stated under item [3] that 'The project will include a protocol independent specification of managed objects with SNMP management capability to be provided in the future by an amendment to IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011 Ethernet MIBs.'.

If such a statement does meet the requirement, as I believe it does, it seems to me that this is not a particularly onerous requirement, and in my opinion has the merit that the plan for the development of managed objects for a project has to be considered.

Based on this I don't support having this requirement removed - but I am in support of a discussion on a possible update on how this requirement may be satisfied - and its relationship to the 5C Compatibility statement that 'Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of standards shall include a definition of managed objects that are compatible with systems management standards'.

Best regards,
   David

-----Original Message-----

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: 13 October 2012 05:04
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs

Pat

I think we should remove it.

If we don't, then probably the best place to track it is to add it to
the 5C, which I have porposed that we update in November.

James Gilb

On 10/12/2012 04:51 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
In working on text for the RFC on how IEEE and IETF work together, I
noticed that the second paragraph of 11.2 of the Operations Manual
(the subclause on 802 approval of PARs) says that PARs are to be
accompanied by "a work plan for the development of managed object
definitions, either as part of the PAR or as part of an additional
PAR".

I haven't seen any PARs accompanied by such a work plan (beyond some
PARs having the words "managed objects" in their scope). Looking at
recently approved PARs, there are PARs that don't include even that.

Should we remove this requirement since we aren't enforcing it?

Regards, Pat

---------- 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.