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

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

Roger
I agree with your first point, if we put it in the 5C, we should delete it from 11.2. 

Your wording is simpler, so I am OK with that as well.
There was a typo in 11.5.2, in the document I have proposed replacing "should be in conformance : IEEE Std 802, ..." with "should be in conformance with IEEE Std 802, ..."
Hearing no other objections or suggestions at this time, I have updated the proposed 5C online and it is available on mentor as: 
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/12/ec-12-0056-01-00EC-proposed-5c.odt
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/12/ec-12-0057-01-00EC-proposed-5c-proprietary-format.doc
We will be discussing the changes in the Rules meeting, but I would ask that each WG discuss the suggested changes during their group meetings as filling out the 5C directly affects the members. I will request approval of these changes to be on the Friday closing agenda. 

James Gilb

On 10/24/2012 03:25 PM, Roger Marks wrote:

James,

I don't fully agree with your proposal. OM 11.2 currently says that the PAR requires "responses describing how the proposed PAR meets the five criteria and a work plan for the development of managed object definitions." In other words, it's asking for two separate things. Therefore, if we put the work plan into the Five Criteria, then I'd want to delete "and a work plan for the development of managed object definitions" from 11.2.

Regarding your proposed addition to 11.5.2, I would prefer a simpler version, such as:

"The Five Criteria statement shall describe the plan for developing a

definition of managed objects as part of the project, or part of a
different project, or explain why such a definition is not needed."


Another point regarding 11.5.2 is that there seems to be a typo in the second sentence. I believe that the colon should be replaced by the word "with".

Roger


On 2012/10/24, at 02:07 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:


David

If there is support for it, I will add it.

Informal straw poll: Any objections?

James Gilb

On 10/24/2012 08:42 AM, Law, David wrote:

Hi James,

You are of course correct - the infamous change to the Compatibility section in the March 2012 plenary indeed :-)

In respect to your proposed addition to Compatibility I am in support of this - are you going to add this as part of you broader set of changes you are proposing for the 5 Criteria?

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: 16 October 2012 22:36
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs

All

While we haven't had a formal straw poll to show consensus, I would
suggest that there is sufficient interest to propose language for the 5C.

David, the text you quoted ("Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of
standards shall include a definition of managed objects that are
compatible with systems management standards.") was deleted in the
infamous change to the Compatibility section in the March 2012 plenary.

May I suggest the following to be added to Compatibility:

Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of standards should include a
definition of managed objects that are compatible with systems
management standards.  Accordingly, the Five Criteria shall answer the
following questions:
    a) Describe the plan for developing a definition of managed objects
for this PAR (e.g., it is part of this PAR, part of another PAR or is
not necessary).  If the definition of managed objects will not be
developed as part of this work, indicate why it will not be developed.
    b) Indicate the systems management standard for which the managed
objects will be compatible.

James Gilb

On 10/15/2012 04:49 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:

I also support what David (and Geoff) said. I believe it is important that
we develop standards that take into consideration how the technology will
be managed.

Regards,
Tony



On 14 October 2012 16:16, Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org> wrote:


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<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.



----------
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.