[802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++INTERIM TALLY: Endorsement of a document numbering scheme for Conformance Standards
Dear SEC members,
REMINDER: this ballot closes Friday 12NOON EDT June 6, 2003. The ballot
tally to date is show below.
Please remember to cast your ballot.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
Vote categories: DIS DNV APP ABS
-----------------------------------------------
01 Geoff Thompson DNV
02 Mat Sherman APP
03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
04 Bob O'Hara APP
05 Bill Quackenbush DNV
06 Tony Jeffree DNV
07 Bob Grow DIS-
08 Stuart Kerry APP
00 Bob Heile APP
10 Roger Marks APP
11 Mike Takefman DNV
12 Carl Stevenson APP
13 Jim Lansford APP
total: -02- -05- -07- -00-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>
To: "IEEE802" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:58 AM
Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Endorsement of a document numbering
scheme for Conformance Standards
>
> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>