|
Dear
SEC members,
I find
the "DNV" count on this ballot very disappointing,
I know
that we all have busy schedules ... I am spending
5
weeks in Geneval, Switzerland, for the ITU RA and the WRC
(major
radio regulatory conferences that only happen every 3-4
years)
and am responding to this e-mail at 0211 local time,
but
I managed to find time to vote on time.
I know
that I am one of the newer members of the 802 Executive
Committee, and I certainly don't want to make any enemies
in
the
Executive Committee, but I urge you all exercise your
obligations to vote in a timely manner on EC electronic
ballots.
Regards,
Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory
Technical Advisory Group
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax mailbox)
610-570-6168 (cellphone)
Short Message Service: 6105706168@voicestream.net
carl.stevenson@ieee.org
---Original
Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich
[mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:50
PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++TENTATIVE
RESULTS: Endorsement of a document numbering scheme for Conformance
Standards
Dear SEC
members,
This ballot closed Friday 12NOON EDT June 6, 2003.
The tentative ballot tally is show below (7APP,1DIS, 0ABS, 5DNV). Per
the LMSC P&P a final ballot tally will not be issued until 24 hours after
the close of the ballot to allow for email delivery time (see 3.4.2.1
Executive Committee Electronic Balloting).
Please verify that I have
captured your vote correctly--if not, please notify me via email directly
to me at p.nikolich@ieee.org.
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
> > >>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> >
>
|