|
Tony-
Unfortunately, since the .10 Standards are up for
re-affirmation this year, we can't wait until the LinkSec SG completes its
work. From my participation in the SG meetings at the March plenary and in
the weekly conference calls, as far as I can tell, the LinkSec SG is at least 6
months (if not longer) away from deciding on a direction to pursue with regard
to a security solution. I can almost guarantee from the discussions that
I've participated in that at least the Secure Data Exchange (SDE) protocol
portion of the .10 Standards will satisfy most (if not all) the security needs
of 802 that have been espoused thus far. Therefore, if we wait until
the LinkSec SG completes its analyses to move to revise SDE, the .10
Standards will have automatically been withdrawn. If the revision motion
is approved at the July plenary, the updates to SDE will be complete by the time
the SG finishes its anlalyses, which I'm certain will show that the
modified SDE is the right choice for 802 security.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:23
AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Ken -
I don't believe that you are considered to be a SG
until such a time as you are defined to be one. Right now, you are a
hibernating WG.
Since a large part of the rationale for revising 802.10
that you presented in March was your view that a revised 802.10 would serve
the needs of the Link Sec study group, I believe the appropriate course of
action would be for any such PAR to be developed within the Link Sec SG. Right
now, the SG has yet to determine whether or not 802.10 will play a part in
whatever mechanisms they decide to use.
Regards,
Tony
At
19:23 12/04/2003 -0400, Ken Alonge wrote:
Mat-
I guess .10 is the
exception again, since the hibernating members of .10 are developing a PAR
and 5 criteria for the revision to IEEE Std 802.10-1998. Since we are
doing this work, are we considered a Study Group? Under the current
definition of an SG, I don't believe so. But who is better qualified
to develop the PAR and 5 Criteria for revision of a Standard than the
hibernating working group members? I would like to hear from some of
the other Exec members on this, since I plan to submit the PAR for approval
by the Exec at the July plenary.
Thanks - Ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
- To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net ;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10 PM
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Ken,
- It was 20 cents well spent. But to be clear, a new WG can evolve
from ANY study group – and EC SG or a WG SG. The point is that some
sort of work (a PAR) should be developed for the new WG before it pops
into existence. PAR’s (again I could be wrong) are developed
normally in Study Groups. I don’t know of any exceptions to this
these days. So I believe a Study Group should always precede a PAR,
and thus a new WG. The same statements would hold for a hibernating
WG being brought out of Hibernation.
- Mat
- Matthew Sherman
- Vice Chair, IEEE 802
- Technology Consultant
- Communications Technology Research
- AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
- Room B255, Building 103
- 180 Park Avenue
- P.O. Box 971
- Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
- Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
- Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
- EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 4:01 PM
- To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Mat-
- The main difference that I see is that .10 was not formed from an EC
study group and, therefore, the members wouldn't have built up voting
rights credits. So, in order to handle a similar situation in the future
(if one ever expects a similar situation to ever occur again) voting
rights would have to be granted to all who attend the first meeting of the
WG, so they could elect officers and begin voting on issues related to
their work. This is the model that could/should be used for
un-hibernating a working group, as well. If the "unwritten" model within
802 forevermore is that all new WGs will ONLY come from ECSGs, then
the rules changes being proposed will work, but I believe that this is a
very shortsighted position.
- Looks like we're back to my original e-mail on the topic, and my two
cents wound up to be 20 cents. Sorry to belabor the point.
- Ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
- To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net ;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 4:42 PM
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Ken,
- I very much appreciate the history. It sounds to me that your
group had a relatively typical evolution. I don’t think what
happened is incompatible with the rules we are suggesting for
today.
- Best Regards,
- Mat
- Matthew Sherman
- Vice Chair, IEEE 802
- Technology Consultant
- Communications Technology Research
- AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
- Room B255, Building 103
- 180 Park Avenue
- P.O. Box 971
- Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
- Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
- Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
- EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:35 PM
- To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
- Cc: Russ Housley
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Mat-
- I dug out the old minutes from the very first meetings of .10.
Kim was the drafter of the PAR, which was reviewed and approved by
attendees of the pre-802.10 WG meetings. The PAR was approved by the
Exec during the July 1988 plenary meeting, which was the 4th meeting of
the group that ultimately became 802.10. The minutes from the 6th
meeting, which is the 3rd meeting as 802.10, indicate that all attendees
at meetings 4 & 5 had immediate voting rights. They numbered
about 25. The attendees list from the subsequent 4 meetings
(meetings 6-10) indicate that most (90%) of the original members who were
granted voting rights continued to attend and made contributions to the
development of the Standard. In actuality, the voting membership
grew to about 30 over the next few meetings. Kim was there from day
1 of the group, even before it became 802.10.
- By the way, .10 was formed from the membership of and was sponsored by
not only the TC on Security and Privacy (as I stated previously), but also
the TC on Computer Communications. There was quite a diverse
membership from the standpoint of industry, government, and academia
representatives, as well as their expertise in networking and
security.
- Ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
- To: kenneth.alonge@verizon.net ;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org ; tony@jeffree.co.uk
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:34 AM
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Ken,
- What you describe sounds very much like an informal version of what I
would normally expect to do today. If I understand you correctly
(correct me if I don’t) the sequence was:
- Informal discussion outside and within 802
- Plenary 1: Present proposal need for new work item to EC and tutorial
to membership
- Plenary 2: Present PAR to EC. Approve PAR. Approve WG with
acting chair
- Plenary 3: First WG meeting. Have elections.
- Today I think the sequence would have run:
- Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work, tutorial to membership, form
SG to write PAR
- Plenary 2: Present and approve PAR. Approve WG with acting
chair
- Plenary 3: First WG meeting. Have elections.
- So I don’t think things are so different. To me the more
important questions are:
- Did the original leadership of 802.10 (Kimberly for instance)
participate in the PAR development? Was the first WG meeting
Kimberly’s first meeting?
- How many showed up for that first meeting? Of those that showed
up, how many became regular members vs just showing up to say they have
voting rights? How many of those at the first meeting participated
in the PAR development? Were the one that stayed on in the group the
ones that helped develop the PAR, or the ones who showed up for the first
time at the first meeting?
- I think these are the questions that are most relevant. I think
that today it is a given that we would not start a new WG without first
having a draft PAR in mind for them to work on. Personally, I would
prefer a slightly extended SG process to give people more time to
acclimate. I would have preferred a process more like:
- Plenary 1: Present proposal for new work to EC, form
SG
- Plenary 2: Present draft PAR and Tutorial to 802
membership
- Plenary 3: Approve PAR, approve new WG
- Plenary 4: First WG meeting. Have elections.
- But I recognize this might be impeding progress more that people would
like, so I doubt I would ever mandate a 3 Plenary approval process.
Just my thoughts.
- Mat
- Matthew Sherman
- Vice Chair, IEEE 802
- Technology Consultant
- Communications Technology Research
- AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
- Room B255, Building 103
- 180 Park Avenue
- P.O. Box 971
- Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
- Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
- Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
- EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:24 AM
- To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Tony Jeffree
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Mat/Tony-
- My recollection of what happened in the formation of .10 in the Wild
Wild West days was that a group of security engineers who were members of
the Technical Committee on Security and Privacy (not sure if I've got the
name exactly right) determined that there was a significant need for
security in 802 LANs. A few of those engineers put together a
tutorial, which was presented at an 802 plenary meeting (sometime in the
1987-88 timeframe). Based on that tutorial and some discussion with
members of the Exec, who agreed that secuirty should be provided for 802
LANs, a PAR was developed by the founders of .10 and submitted to the Exec
for approval at the next plenary. The rest is history. All
attendees at the first meeting of .10 immediately got voting rights (I
unfortunately did not attend that first meeting, so I had to earn mine
through the usual process). The original .10 Chair (Kimberly
Kirkpatrick) was granted Exec voting rights at the next plenary -- she had
no previous 802 experience, but was mentored by the other Chairs.
When I took over from Kim in 1992 after she became seriously ill, I also
had no experience in running an 802 Working Group (or even a study group
for that matter), but I too was mentored by the other Chairs. As I
recall, there were also some tutorials offered by the IEEE Staff on "How
to be a Good Chair" - my own made up title for this. These were very
helpful in learing the processes.
- Obviously, things change over time (sometimes for the better), but I
hope we don't ignore the successes of the past. I firmly believe
that there should be a well worded process for forming new Working Groups
in any revision of the P&P, which is flexible enough to accommodate
formation of a Working Group directly from an outside body of expertise
that doesn't have to become a Study Group, which is spun off from another
802 Working Group first.
- Also, at some point (hopefully soon) the issue of un-hibernating a
Working Group needs to be addressed, because I will be presenting a PAR to
the Exec before the next plenary for revisions to IEEE Std
802.10-1998.
- Ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Tony Jeffree
- To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:10 AM
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Mat/Ken -
- If my memory serves me correctly, the concept of Study Groups
post-dates the formation of 802.10. At the time .10 was formed, the
formation of new WGs was simply a result of the SEC waving its collective
magic wand. As such, the 802.10 case doesn't shed any light whatsoever on
current P&P or operating practice.
- I believe the intent of the current 802 rules, particularly 5.3, is
that a future new WG would not come into being without a Study Group first
developing a PAR for its work and the SEC making a decision as to where
that PAR would be placed. The wording in the rules could benefit from
making that a more explicit requirement, but the intent is nonetheless
clear. So we're not talking unwritten rules here; badly written rules,
perhaps, but written nonetheless.
- My personal view is that the same principle must apply to hibernating
WGs - i.e., that they cannot be magically un-hibernated by a waving of the
SEC magic wand without the pre-cursor of establishing a Study Group to
define a PAR for the work that they might do.
- Regards,
- Tony
- At 23:19 10/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com
wrote:
- Ken,
- So I guess the first question is where do Working Groups come
from? My own opinion is that our rules are somewhat lacking in terms
of a process by which WG s are formed. For that matter, they are
equally lacking in terms of the process followed to restart a WG.
Off hand it appears that they simply pop into existence by a vote of the
EC. But for sure Working Groups should only exist if they have at
least one assigned task to do. Normally we say a WG without an
active PAR goes into Hibernation. However if we look at SA Standards
Board Operations Manual we find:
- 5.2 Project authorization
- No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of
the first meeting of the working group
- without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and
assignment of a project number (see
- 5.1.2).
- 6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)
- As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group
shall appoint a chair (or official
- reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the
proposed standard constitutes a
- work made for hire as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any
work not so defined, any rights or
- interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred
to the IEEE.
- So clearly their intent is that the WG comes before the PAR.
This presents a bit of a chicken and egg problem. In my recollection
within 802, the only way a PAR comes into existence these days is by first
having a Study Group study the matter. If that SG develops a draft
PAR, and the EC determines a new WG is needed to pursue that PAR, POP the
WG comes into existence. In my mind the SG plays the role of the
pre-PAR WG. I don t believe the SA is cognizant of SG s or gives
them any status. These seem to be an 802 unique thing (though I
could be wrong). However, I would not normally expect a WG to come
into existence without first a debate as to where the work belongs, and an
EC SG to at least determine if the work is appropriate for 802.
Apparently none of these steps occurred for 802.10, which surprises
me. I guess there could be such strong consensus when the issue was
first raised to the EC that there was no need for an EC level SG, and the
WG could simply pop into existence. My own preference would be that
a WG not come into existence until at least one PAR has been well defined
for it to work on. However, if a WG were to pop into existence
without a PAR, I would hope that except for electing officers, they would
initially operate in SG mode to develop a PAR, since they can t exist for
long without one. And I would hope that all the members of the WG
were members of the SG, or else why would they be there? Can their
be a Task Group without a PAR? Near as I can tell our rules don t
really deal with Task Groups either. So frankly, I am
confused.
- Could you provide more details on the formation of 802.10? How
did you get to your first PAR?
- Thanks,
- Mat
- Matthew Sherman
- Vice Chair, IEEE 802
- Technology Consultant
- Communications Technology Research
- AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
- Room B255, Building 103
- 180 Park Avenue
- P.O. Box 971
- Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
- Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
- Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
- EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
- Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:10 PM
- To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); bob@airespace.com;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
- Hi All-
- I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a little
more. In Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes to a Working Group
evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be the method by which WGs
have come into existence in the recent past) and that a WG doesn't pop
into existence. In fact, 802.10 did not evolve from a SG -- it
"popped" into existence from work that began outside 802. At the
very first meeting of .10 everyone that attended was granted voting
rights, and the Chair (who had not previously participated in 802) had
Exec voting rights at the next Plenary. Is it the expectation that
this will NEVER happen again in 802?
- Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the current Exec
knows (except me, since I haven't been around in a while) that ALL new
WGs will ONLY come from SGs that have been spun off from existing WGs
(and therefore people have been building up credits toward voting rights
in the manner specified in the P&P), then I think the Exec needs to
keep the current practice of awarding membership to all who attend the
first meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.) If this
is really the case, then I think there may be some shortsightedness on the
part of the Exec, as to where new 802 projects might come from.
- Ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: mjsherman@research.att.com
- To: bob@airespace.com ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:42 PM
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on
WG Membership
- Bob,
- I think you at least partially misunderstand my intent in the changes
I proposed. Your arguments seem to focus strongly on the officers of
the group, and not the general membership. So let me ask you
this. Why do we have the 3 session rule that normally applies to
achieving membership? If one meeting is enough for anyone to follow
what is going on technically, and understand the procedures in place, why
don t we just let every expert act as a member the moment they walk in the
door?
- A WG is not a virtual particle popping in and out of a vacuum.
On day one, it has a context that it evolved in and is continuing to
evolve in. That context is the Study Group it evolved from, and 802
itself. To properly participate even in an election, I believe
participants need to have a solid sense of what they are there to do, and
how it is normally done. Not to mention some level of familiarity
with the candidates. I don t think one meeting or even one session
is enough. And I don t think the creators of the 3 session rule did
either. While the EC may be able to mentor the leadership of a new
WG, I don t think they can effectively mentor the membership itself if it
is completely green along with the leadership.
- I firmly believe that the creators of the first meeting rule
chose to let everyone in because it was convenient and easy to do the book
keeping. I am sure they saw the potential flaws, but presumed those
potentials were generally remote and could be neglected. They
probably did not believe these remote possibilities justified the
inclusion of a more complex initial membership process. I think we
now see that those potentials are larger than may have originally been
anticipated. I for one now see a need for a more complex start up
process which better preserves the intent of the 3 session rule for
gaining membership. So again I ask, in your mind why have the 3
session rule if 3 sessions are not required to participate intelligently
in a group?
- Mat
- Matthew Sherman
- Vice Chair, IEEE 802
- Technology Consultant
- Communications Technology Research
- AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
- Room B255, Building 103
- 180 Park Avenue
- P.O. Box 971
- Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
- Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
- Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
- EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com]
- Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:30 PM
- To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on
WG Membership
- Mat,
- I vote DISAPPROVE on this ballot.
- I believe that including any criterion related to experience with
LMSC, its working groups, or study groups as a prerequisite to holding
office is a path to constant judgment calls by the SEC as to how much
experience is enough, what experience is relevant, and how recent that
experience must be. So, must an officer candidate hold a working group
office prior to running a study group, in order to be qualified? Which
positions? How long?
- If we are going to require an experience criterion to be met, I want
it to be explicit, concrete, and measurable. It must NOT be subject to
interpretation. Given that the current proposed change lacks this
specificity:
- In 5.1.3.1 delete:
- "In no case should a person who is not a member in good standing of
IEEE 802 by the end of the first session of establishment of a WG be
considered to Chair a WG, as they are unlikely to have sufficient
familiarity with the Policies and Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the
IEEE 802 Standards Association (IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."
- and replace it with:
- "Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice chair(s)
shall be members of the working group."
- I believe that the SEC has the obligation to mentor the officers that
are chosen by the working groups. It is the membership of the working
group that is best situated to evaluate the qualifications of its
leadership. The SEC, at best, is second guessing the working group
decisions.
- I also don't agree with the substitution of study group participation
for credit toward working group membership. This is a hack to try to
give preference to study group participants, on the theory that they have
more "experience" with 802 by having attended a study group meeting or two
and, thus, would make better officers. Or, possibly, this is a
misguided attempt to prevent "loading" the membership at the first meeting
and electing a slate that is "distasteful" to some constituency.
This is unsubstantiated.
- The nature of the work of a study group and a working group is
fundamentally different. The task of a study group is basically
administrative and marketing, to get a PAR and 5 criteria document
approved. The task of a working group (at least initially) is mostly
technical, evaluating technical proposals and writing a standard.
The types and numbers of people that would attend the study group and
working group meetings can be expected to be quite different. Why
should the working group members have their choices of officer candidates
limited to those that chose to perform the administrative and marketing
tasks of a study group, when the character of the work changes
dramatically at the formation of the working group?
- In 5.1.3.1 reverse the deletion of the first sentence of this clause
(i.e., put it back). This is clear and concise. The deletion
is completely ineffective, since all one has to do at the first meeting is
present a letter of intention to participate to the chair, in order to
gain instant membership according to the sentence that is proposed to
start 5.1.3.1. Also delete the first two sentences in
the second paragraph.
- -Bob
- -----Original Message-----
- From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
- Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:31 PM
- To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
Membership
- Dear EC members,
- Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on
WG Membership. This ballot was approved at the Friday March 14, 2003
plenary session. It is identical to what was presented at the
Plenary session except that per the minutes of that meeting I have change
the Section number 1.1.1.1 to 5.1.3.1. The purpose and rationale for
the ballot are as given in the attached document.
- Ballot Opens: March 27, 2003
- Ballot Closes: April 28, 2003 11:59 PM
- WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG
members to comment through you. Buzz, please ensure this gets sent
to the "802ALL" email list as well. While I encourage discussion on the
reflector, I am trying something new this time, and have included a ballot
response / comment form. Prior to the close of the ballot, please
fill out the attached form with your vote and a summary of your
comments. Then send it to the reflector. I will accept updated
forms until the close of the ballot. I m also open to comments on
how this process works. Hopefully this will make it easier for me to
compile and distribute comments, and not much more difficult for everyone
else. If it doesn t work, we will fall back to the old process the
next round of ballots.
- Thanks & Regards,
- Mat
- Matthew Sherman
- Vice Chair, IEEE 802
- Technology Consultant
- Communications Technology Research
- AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
- Room B255, Building 103
- 180 Park Avenue
- P.O. Box 971
- Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
- Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
- Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
- EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
- Regards,
- Tony
Regards,
Tony
|