RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Endorsement of a document numbering scheme for Conformance Standards
If it's OK with the WG Chairs who produce standards,
it's OK with me ... Approve.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:37 PM
> To: IEEE802
> Cc: Paul Nikolich
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Endorsement of a document
> numbering scheme for Conformance Standards
>
>
>
> I vote Approve.
>
> Since the background material below is quite lengthy, here is
> a brief summary:
>
> 802.16 has three open PARs to develop separate conformance
> standards to support IEEE Std 802.16. These are numbered
> 1802.16.1, 1802.16.2, and 1802.16.3, in accordance with an
> advertised 802 convention on how to number conformance
> standards. However, with 1802.16.1 sitting on the RevCom
> agenda, the IEEE editorial staff indicated concern with the
> numbering scheme. The issue is possible confusion due to the
> fact that 802 has already been using the second "." to number
> its standards. A user might not know whether "1802.16.3" is
> the third document in the series of "802.16" conformance
> documents, or whether it is the single conformance document
> for 802.16.3.
>
> Yvette proposed an alternative that would be workable as a
> new convention, suitable for use by, for example, 802.15,
> with its 802.15.N standards. Paul suggested a slight
> modification. The proposal is OK with me and Bob Heile. Paul
> wanted to see this voted on by the SEC. The reason I've asked
> for an electronic ballot is so that the issue can be resolved
> before the June NesCom/RevCom meetings, at which action will
> be required to change the number of "1802.16.1" to
> ""802.16/Conformance01" before approval. At the same time,
> NesCom could renumber PARs 1802.16.2 and 1802.16.3.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> At 11:58 AM -0400 5/22/03, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >Dear SEC,
> >
> >This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on
> the below SEC
> >motion to endorse a document numbering scheme for
> Conformance Standards.
> >Moved by Roger Marks, Seconded by Bob Heile
> >
> >The email ballot opens on Thursday May 22, 2003 12NOON EDT
> and closes Friday
> >June 6, 2003 12NOON EDT. (The ballot is timed to close
> before the IEEE
> >Standards Board meetings the week of June 9 to enable IEEE 802's
> >recommendation to be considered by NesCom.)
> >
> >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC
> directly to me
> >(p.nikolich@ieee.org).
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul Nikolich
> >
> > 'Motion: To endorse a document numbering system of the form "IEEE
> >802.N/Conformance01-2003" for standards specifying
> conformance to IEEE
> > Std 802.N (where "01" is the number of the first such
> standard and is to
> >be incremented for additional ones), subject to refinement based on
> > discussions between the LMSC Chair, IEEE-SA staff, and IEEE-SA
> >committees.'
> >MOVED: Roger Marks
> >SECOND: Bob Heile
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> >------------------
> >Background material:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Roger Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> >To: <y.hoSang@ieee.org>
> >Cc: "Roger Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>; "Geoff Thompson"
> ><gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>; <millardo@dominetsystems.com>;
> ><paul.nikolich@att.net>; <j.haasz@ieee.org>; <m.nielsen@ieee.org>;
> ><a.ortiz@ieee.org>; <bheile@ieee.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: Proposed NesCom convention for numbering of corrigenda
> >
> >
> > > Yvette:
> > >
> > > At Paul's suggestion, I am currently planning to make a
> motion for an
> > > SEC email ballot to endorse a document numbering scheme
> for conformance
> > > standards. My second will be Bob Heile, whom I consulted
> since 802.15
> > > also has standards of the form 802.X.Y. Bob and I were happy with
> > > Paul's suggestion to modify your proposal by adding "Conf" to
> > > "Conformance".
> > >
> > > Earlier today, I asked Paul to review this motion:
> > >
> > > 'Motion: To endorse a document numbering system of the form "IEEE
> > > 802.N/Conformance01-2003" for standards specifying
> conformance to IEEE
> > > Std 802.N (where "01" is the number of the first such
> standard and is
> > > to be incremented for additional ones), subject to
> refinement based on
> > > discussions between the LMSC Chair, IEEE-SA staff, and IEEE-SA
> > > committees.'
> > >
> > > I hope we can get the SEC to approve this ballot before the June
> > > Standard Board meetings. This should provide support to
> go forward with
> > > approving 1802.16.1 as "802.16/Conformance01-2003". The
> numbers of the
> > > 1802.16.2 and 1802.16.3 could be changed there too.
> > >
> > > I would not be comfortable with a change to the title of
> the standard,
> > > since this title was used on the balloted draft.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 03:02 PM, y.hoSang@ieee.org wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > I haven't received other input, so I'd like to address
> a concern I have
> > > > with the suggestions you listed.
> > > >
> > > > We can change the title to show "Conformance Test for IEEE Std
> > > > 802.16---Part 1: Title" without much problems. The designation,
> > > > however,
> > > > might prove problematic. As you know, there has been an
> ongoing debate
> > > > about the use of "IEEE Std" for the different types of documents
> > > > denoted as
> > > > standards. If we want to expedite the approval of IEEE
> P1802.16.1, I
> > > > don't
> > > > think we'll get any resolution for the use of "Conf
> Tst" instead of
> > > > "IEEE
> > > > Std." We can try, but I doubt that a final decision and
> PAR change
> > > > would be
> > > > possible in the timeframe we have.
> > > >
> > > > The debate about what the designation should be will be
> decided by
> > > > NesCom
> > > > in its discussion (so plan to be there). What I hoped
> was that the SEC
> > > > had
> > > > no major issues with the suggested change to the NesCom
> conventions,
> > > > and
> > > > that a decision could be made about which of the
> suggested formats
> > > > could be
> > > > used as the norm for conformance documents to IEEE 802
> standards. That
> > > > way,
> > > > we can get NesCom to approve the designation change for IEEE
> > > > P1802.16.1,
> > > > and then get the approval from RevCom on the draft. So
> far, the only
> > > > concern I received was the use of "Conformance" rather
> than "Conf." You
> > > > highlighted the difficulty with the database (we
> currently have issues
> > > > with
> > > > the length of our designations and titles). My hope was
> to keep it
> > > > within
> > > > the current length to make the change as painless as
> possible. I'll
> > > > check
> > > > into whether we can accommodate the longer designation
> and get back to
> > > > everyone. If the SEC still wants to try to make the changes you
> > > > suggested,
> > > > then I'd like to ask that the group choose a backup
> plan from the
> > > > suggestions that were made just in case we encounter
> concerns. That
> > > > way, we
> > > > can still work on getting IEEE P1802.16.1 approved.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yvette Ho Sang
> > > > Manager, Standards Publishing Programs
> > > > IEEE Standards Activities
> > > > +1 732 562 3814
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Geoff Thompson
> > > > <gthompso@nortelnet To:
> y.hoSang@ieee.org
> > > > works.com> cc:
> > > > paul.nikolich@att.net, "Geoff Thompson"
> > > >
> > > > <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>, millardo@dominetsystems.com,
> > > > 05/13/2003 02:44 PM
> r.b.marks@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: Re:
> > > > Proposed NesCom convention for numbering of corrigenda
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All-
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see something excruciatingly simple.
> > > >
> > > > I offer the following format examples:
> > > >
> > > > Conformance Test for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > > > Conformance Test, Complete, for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > > > Conformance Test, Part 1, for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > > > Conformance Test, Part 1 of n, for IEEE Std
> 802.3 - 2002
> > > >
> > > > Such a simple scheme would presumably work well for
> actual humans
> > > > looking
> > > > in a catalog but would presumably not well for list
> management and
> > > > inventory control by field oriented computer databases.
> For those
> > > > systems,
> > > > I would recommend/propose that there be a separate document type
> > > > designation that said "CONF Tst" instead of "IEEE Std"
> (note, same
> > > > number
> > > > of characters)
> > > >
> > > > In draft stage there would also need to be separation
> by designation.
> > > > Whereas:
> > > > P802.3a/D1.01 is a designator for a draft
> standard (P is for
> > > > "Project")
> > > > I would propose:
> > > > T802.3a/D1.01 is a designator for a draft conformance
> > > > test(T is
> > > > for "Test")
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 05:56 PM 5/5/2003 -0400, y.hoSang@ieee.org wrote:
> > > >> Paul,
> > > >>
> > > >> Roger and I have discussed a concern I have with the
> numbering of IEEE
> > > >> P1802.16.2. This is the second conformance document
> for IEEE Std
> > > >> 802.16,
> > > >> but infers by the numbering that it is the conformance
> document for
> > > >> IEEE
> > > >> Std 802.16.2. My hope is to establish a numbering
> convention that will
> > > >> eliminate this type of confusion. The attachment shows
> text that staff
> > > >> would like to propose as a NesCom convention (see
> paragraph 10). In
> > > >> short,
> > > >> it allows three choices
> > > >>
> > > >> a) Use of a completely different designation (IEEE Std
> 1234 could be
> > > >> the
> > > >> conformance document for IEEE Std 5678)
> > > >>
> > > >> b) Use of a special designation associated with a base
> document (IEEE
> > > >> Std
> > > >> 1802.3 could be the conformance document for IEEE Std 802.3)
> > > >>
> > > >> c) Special multi-volume designation if the working
> group develops more
> > > > than
> > > >> one conformance document for a specific standard (IEEE
> Std 802.16/Conf
> > > >> 1-20xx could be the conformance document for IEEE Std
> 802.16; or IEEE
> > > >> Std
> > > >> 1802.16/Conf 1-20xx could be the conformance document
> for IEEE Std
> > > >> 802.16)
> > > >>
> > > >> If I could get input from the IEEE 802 SEC prior to
> June, we could
> > > >> avoid
> > > >> any delay in the approval of IEEE P1802.16.1. My
> suggestion would be
> > > >> to
> > > >> have a consistent numbering for the IEEE 802 group.
> I'm not sure what
> > > >> the
> > > >> history is for placing a "1" before the designation to
> indicate that
> > > >> the
> > > >> document is a conformance standard. If the group would
> like to retain
> > > >> this
> > > >> numbering, then I would suggest the following numbering scheme:
> > > >>
> > > >> IEEE Std 1802.16/Conf 1-20xx
> > > >>
> > > >> If not, then I would suggest the following:
> > > >>
> > > >> IEEE Std 802.16/Conf 1-20xx
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to get a sense of the SEC's preference for
> numbering these
> > > >> types
> > > >> of documents. Could you tell me whether this requires
> a SEC vote? If
> > > >> we
> > > > can
> > > >> work the language prior to the NesCom meeting in June, we can
> > > >> hopefully
> > > > get
> > > >> this resolved.
> > > >>
> > > >> (See attached file: parnumber95_5-05-03.rtf)
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yvette Ho Sang
> > > >> Manager, Standards Publishing Programs
> > > >> IEEE Standards Activities
> > > >> +1 732 562 3814
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>