James, As you noted it is already in there, but specific to wireless
standards. Therefore I have not paid as much attention to it. If I
had, I would have had issues with the way it was written. Once again
The 5 Criteria are the basis for determining whether to forward a PAR
or not. I do not see this text as helping that function at all.
If we are going to update it period then it should be done in a way
to help that function. Otherwise this is a process requirement for
projects that should be moved to the appropriate section.
I also prefer the current way that it is organized, as opposed to the
proposal to elevate it up to all groups.
My $0.02
John -----Original Message----- From: James Gilb
[mailto:jpgilb@gmail.com] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb Sent:
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:13 PM To: DAmbrosia, John Cc:
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Changing the 5
Criteria
John
Do we need to preserve 5 having items or the term 5C? We can
editorial add new criteria by just merging them into the existing
one, that was the proposal last time, to have managed objects and
coexistence merged into compatibility.
We can have 7 sections in the "5C", regardless of how many criteria
there are in it. Kind of like how the Big 10 had 12 teams.
The coexistence criteria is already in there, the change is from
having it apply only to wireless PARs to have it apply to all PARs.
The requirement for action after PAR approval is not a new
requirement.
For you WG, you would ask if the resulting standard would cause
sufficient inteference to other standards that it warranted
evaluating the coexistence capability. While most wired networks
would indicate that they are not going to produce a coexistence
criteria because the cables are shielded or the emissions from the
PCB are low, there may be cases for Ethernet in which analyzing
coexistence with other devices operating with other standards nearby
may be necessary.
James Gilb
On 03/19/2013 02:00 PM, John D'Ambrosia wrote:
All,
I am having a lot of reservations of moving away from the 5
Criteria.
Simply put the 5 Criteria have brand value - people know what they
mean. It is something that I personally feel is ingrained in our
participants, and people outside of the IEEE have some perceived
knowledge of them as well.
I believe the last proposed "Co-existence" criteria text is in
EC-13-0009-00. James, please correct me if I am wrong. It reads
-
*/14.3/**/C/**/o/**/ex/**/i/**/s/**/t/**/e/**/nc/**/e/*
Statetheplanforaddressingcoexistence.
a)
WilltheWGcreateaCAdocumentaspartoftheWGballotingprocess?(yes/no)
b) Ifnot,explainwhytheCAdocumentisnot applicable.
The 5 Criteria are the basis for determining whether to forward a
PAR or not. The text above reads more as a requirement for a PAR
that has already been approved, not a criteria. Furthermore, what
does a proposed project have to co-exist with? I suspect that this
is WG specific. Therefore, I would argue that it should be left
to individual WGs to determine this requirement, and the specific
WG can then make it part of the specific WG process.
In its current wording, I have no clue how I would answer this from
my specific WG. Therefore, it would probably get a meaningless NA
answer that does nothing to assist the group in determining whether
a PAR should be approved. From my own WG perspective I would also
argue that if it could not co-exist then it would impact the broad
market potential of the project.
Therefore, in its current form, I would have to vote against this
proposal. Furthermore, I believe that we should really consider
the brand value of the 5C, and should seek to preserve it.
John
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee
email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.