[802SEC] Re: staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
Yvette,
Your note raises the issue that "The records that we have show that NesCom approved the numbering as IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003." Thanks for pointing this out, because I didn't realize that your records showed this. I thought that you were simply trying to revise the decisions made last year so that they would agree with a policy.
To clarify, I have done my own research. My conclusions are the opposite of yours. The following records support my point on this issue:
*I can't find the specific NesCom Recommendations of 11 June 2003 because the link <http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/0306nesrec.rtf> leads only to a duplicate of the September 2003 Recommendations. However, NesCom's "PAR Approvals/History" page include the letter <http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/1802-16-3.pdf> documenting that the three PARs are renumbered "P802.16/Conformance01-200x", "P802.16/Conformance02-200x", and "P802.16/Conformance03-200x", as I have been saying.
*The RevCom Minutes of 11 June 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/rev/private/603revmin.html> say about P1802.16.1:
"Recommendation: APPROVE. [Note: NesCom has changed the designation to P802.16/Conformance01]"
*The RevCom Recommendatiions of 11 June 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/rev/603recomm.html> also say about P1802.16.1:
"Recommendation: APPROVE. [Note: NesCom has changed the designation to P802.16/Conformance01]"
*The SASB Minutes of 12 June 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/stdsbd/private/0306stbmin.html> show that the NesCom and RevCom Recommendations were approved on the Consent Agenda.
*The RevCom Minutes of 9 December 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/rev/private/1203revmin.html> say:
"P802.16/Conformance02... Recommendation: APPROVE"
*The RevCom Recommendatiions of 9 December 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/rev/1203recomm.html> say:
"P802.16/Conformance02... Recommendation: APPROVE"
*The SASB Minutes of 10 December 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/stdsbd/private/0312stbmin.html> show that the NesCom and RevCom Recommendations were approved on the Consent Agenda.
By the way, I also discovered this item in the NesCom Minutes of 11 June 2003 <http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/private/0306nesmin.html>:
"Jodi Haasz, staff, informed the committee that the only change to the policy was the addition of a numbering method for conformance documents. Paul Nikolich, NesCom member, suggested using the numbering scheme of P####/Conformance01-200x instead of P####/Conf 01-200x. Yvette HoSang, Manager, Standards Publishing, agreed to this change. The change was accepted by the committee."
So it seems to me as if the approved NesCom policy does NOT included the reference to the year of initial standard. In other words, it seems to me that the 802.16 conformance PARs are _already_ numbered in accordance with the policy approved by NesCom.
Can you please let me know what records you have that contradict the minutes? It's taken me quite awhile to research the topic, and I can't dig any deeper right now.
Regards,
Roger
At 12:12 -0500 04/01/08, y.hoSang@ieee.org wrote:
>Roger/Paul,
>
>The records that we have show that NesCom approved the numbering as
>
>IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003
>
>The document was mistakenly published as
>
>IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01-2003
>
>We are required to correct the designation to that approved by NesCom. In
>order to change this, it would have to be submitted to NesCom once again.
>
>I understand Roger's concern, and wondered whether it wouldn't be easier,
>and better for the customer, to use the format of standards that have
>relationships to other standards. For example, a revised standard would
>have as its designation
>
>IEEE Std 1234-2004
>(Revision of IEEE Std 1234-1999)
>
>In the case of a conformance document to the base only, you would have
>
>IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003
>(Conformance to IEEE Std 802.16-2001)
>
>If the base is amended, you would have
>
>IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003
>(Conformance to IEEE Std 802.16-2001
>as amendmend by IEEE Std 802.16a-2002)
>
>This wouldn't require a submission to NesCom. Tell me what you think.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Yvette Ho Sang
>Manager, Standards Publishing Programs
>IEEE Standards Activities
>+1 732 562 3814
>
>
>
>
> "Roger B. Marks"
> <r.b.marks@ieee.o To: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> rg> cc: GAntonello@wi-lan.com, ken@ensemblecom.com,
> stds-802-sec@ieee.org, y.hoSang@ieee.org, j.haasz@ieee.org
> 01/05/2004 10:38 Subject: Re: staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Paul,
>
>Jodi asked that I discuss this with you. I'd like to make the following
>points:
>
>(1) Jodi suggested that the numbering scheme I'm discussing is one that "I
>am proposing". I don't think that's a correct description. The scheme is
>the one that is in actual use. It was used by NesCom and the IEEE-SA
>Standards Board in renumbering three 802.16 PARs (based on staff requests)
>last June. One of those PARs led to a standard that was published last
>August and approved by ANSI. Another PAR led to a standard that was
>approved by the SASB last month.
>
>(2) I agree that the numbering scheme in use does not tell the user on
>which version the compliance is based. However, as I have previously noted,
>the proposed alternative doesn't either. However, that proposal is worse
>because the document number would misleadingly imply that it _does_ provide
>the version on which the compliance is based. For instance, IEEE Standard
>802.16/Conformance01-2003 says "This document is Part 1 of a multi-part
>deliverable addressing conformance to the WirelessMAN-SC air interface in
>IEEE 802.16... When IEEE 802.16 is referenced this generally includes the
>base document and any existing amendments and corrigenda." The two existing
>amendments - 802.16a and 802.16c - were both cited as normative references.
>Renumbering the standard as IEEE Standard 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003
>would imply that it addresses conformance based on IEEE Standard
>802.16-2001, but that implication would be erroneous because the technical
>content was altered in the amendments.
>
>(3) The numbering scheme in use was approved by in an 802 EC email ballot.
>The only Dis came from Bob Grow, because "The name is too long and
>concatenated format decreases readability." Based on that comment, I would
>hate to go back to Bob and tell him that we have renumbered a standard as
>"IEEE Standard 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003"
>
>(4) I don't fully understand the staff proposal. Is it not only to renumber
>the proposed new PAR but also to:
>
> (a) renumber the published IEEE Standard 802.16/Conformance01-2003
> (b) renumber the approved IEEE Standard 802.16/Conformance02-2003
> (c) yet again renumber the outstanding PAR P802.16/Conformance03?
>
>Note that renumbering the published standard would require a revision of
>its frontmatter, which explains under "Conformance test methodology" the
>numbering scheme in current use.
>
>
>I request that NesCom continue with the numbering scheme in current use.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 08:39 -0500 04/01/05, j.haasz@ieee.org wrote:
>>Dear Roger:
>>
>>In my previous e-mail, I forwarded the IEEE-SA PAR Numbering Policy,
> >approved December 2003.
>>
>>If you look at the numbering scheme that you are proposing, the user would
>>not know if Conformance04-2003 was conformance to IEEE Std 802.16-2001 or
>>to a revision of 802.16 (e.g. 802.16-2004). The policy was reviewed by
>>myself, Yvette and Paul Nikolich and approved by NesCom.
>>
>>I would suggest that you discuss this issue with Paul as he is a member of
>>NesCom and see what his thoughts are.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Jodi Haasz
>>Program Manager
>>International Stds Programs and Governance
>>Standards Activities
>>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>>Email: j.haasz@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> "Roger B. Marks"
>
>> <r.b.marks@ieee.o To: j.haasz@ieee.org
>
>> rg> cc:
>p.nikolich@ieee.org, y.hoSang@ieee.org, stds-802-sec@ieee.org,
>
>> ken@ensemblecom.com,
>GAntonello@wi-lan.com
>> 12/24/2003 03:25 Subject: staff request to
>again renumber 802 Conformance standards
>> AM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jodi,
>>
>>I appreciate your attempt to resolve this problem, but I simply cannot
>>accept the staff request on this issue.
>>
>>The problem (as documented in the email trail below) is that staff wants
>to
>>renumber our proposed P802.16/Conformance04 PAR, and, to boot, renumber
>the
>>previous documents in the series, backing out of an agreement reached just
>>six months ago to renumber projects in accordance with staff requests. I
>>think I should recap the history:
>>
>>(1) NesCom and the SASB approved the first three PARs in the series as
>>P1802.16.1, P1802.16.2, and P1802.16.3. AFTER the first was through
>Sponsor
>>Ballot and the Sponsor Ballot Group for the second was in place, staff
>>decided that it was unsatisfied with the numbering of all three PARs.
>>
>>(2) We worked out a new numbering systems of the form "IEEE
>>802.N/Conformance01-2003". The 802 LMSC Executive Committee ran a ballot
>to
>>approve this form. NesCom and the Standards Board renumbered all three
>PARs
>>accordingly in June 2003. We duly notified the affected parties of the
>>renumbered projects.
>>
>>(3) Subsequently, IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01-2003 has been published,
>>IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance02-2003 has approved by RevCom, and
>>P802.16/Conformance03 has passed Sponsor Ballot unanimously (albeit with
>>comments to resolve).
>>
>>(4) In November, we submitted the next PAR in the series:
>>P802.16/Conformance04-2003. You responded that staff now wants to change
> >the PAR numbering format to "P802.16-20xx/Conformance04-20xx". I said that
>>this doesn't follow the approved numbering system. You said that staff
>>wants to move to this new convention and therefore wants to RENUMBER THE
>>PRIOR PUBLISHED STANDARD to meet it. You didn't mention the 02 standard
>and
>>03 project, but I presume that staff will proposed to renumber those again
>>too.
>>
>>(5) You have asked whether I approve of this change. The answer is simple:
>>No.
>>
>>Jodi, I believe that a staff request to once again renumber projects, even
>>after a previous change was agreed to by all parties (including the 802 EC
>>in a ballot) and served as the basis of approved standards, is
>>unacceptable.
>>
>>Furthermore, I believe that the proposed new scheme is faulty, for the
>>following reasons:
>>
>>(a) "IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003" is an absurdly long and
>>complicated document number.
>>
>>(b) Using a year twice in the same document number is confusing.
>>
>>(c) Most fundamentally, using the publication year of the base document is
>>inaccurate and misleading. For instance, the standard that has been
>>proposed for renaming is NOT strictly based on IEEE Std 802.16-2001. It is
>>based on that standard as amended by IEEE Std 802.16c-2002 and IEEE Std
>>802.16a-2003. You simply can't convey this fact in the document number,
>>unless you want something like "IEEE Std 802.16-2001, 802.16c-2002,
>>802.16c-2003/Conformance01-2003". And I don't find that acceptable either.
>>
>>It is my wish that staff accepts the prior agreed-to numbering scheme,
>>accepts the number proposed on 802's P802.16/Conformance04 submission, and
> >retracts the plan to "redesignate" IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01 as
>>IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01.
>>
>>I'm sorry we've run into a conflict at this time of year. I know that many
>>of us, including myself, are on vacation right now and don't relish any
>>complications. However, I am sure I would eventually regret going along
>>with the proposal simply for the sake of harmony.
>>
>>I do wish you the a happy holiday season and look forward to a happy
>>resolution of the problem.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>At 15:38 -0500 03/12/19, j.haasz@ieee.org wrote:
>>>Dear Roger:
>> >
>>>Further to my voice mail earlier:
>>>
>>>I have spoken to Yvette HoSang about the newly-published conformance
>>>standard. She confirmed that this will be redesignated at IEEE Std
>>>802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003. The number does need to track back to
>the
>>>date of the source standard.
>>>
>>>As you indicated below, Conformance04 will relate to the current project
>>>revising IEEE Std 802.16-2001; therefore, the project for Conformance04
>>>should be numbered as P802.16-20xx/Conformance04-20xx. The reason for
>the
>>>two sets of "xx"s is the first sent in the standard number denotes the
>>>FUTURE year of publication of the revision project for 802.16; the second
>>>set of "xx"s represents the year of publication for the conformance
>>>document.
>>>
>>>If you could please let me know if we can now move forward with this PAR
>>>submission, I would really appreciate it.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Jodi Haasz
>>>Program Manager
>>>International Stds Programs and Governance
>>>Standards Activities
>>>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>>>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>>>Email: j.haasz@ieee.org
>>>
>>>
>>>Jodi,
>>>
>>>Our newly-published conformance standard is IEEE
>>802.16/Conformance01-2003.
>>>The title doesn't track back to the date of the source standard.
>>>
>>>Conformance04 will probably relate to IEEE 802.16-2004, since we are
>>>currently doing a revision.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>> >Dear Roger:
>>>>
>>>>I think I was confused. According to the NesCom numbering policy:
>>>>
>>>>Projects for conformance may have unique numbers unrelated to the
>>standard
>>>>for which conformance is being defined; they may have a parallel number
>>to
>>>>the standard for which conformance is being defined, e.g., P1656 could
>be
>>>>the conformance project to IEEE Std 656-20xx; or they may maintain the
>>> >numeric designation of the standard for which a conformance project is
>>> >being defined, e.g., the first conformance project to IEEE Std
>>1905.2-20xx
> >> >would be P1905.2-20xx/Conformance01-20xx. The latter method is
>>>particularly
>>> >recommended for multipart conformance projects to a single standard. In
>>>>special instances, a predetermined designation may be needed, e.g.,
>>during
>>>>international coordination, and shall be submitted to NesCom for
>>approval.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, your document should be numbered as
>>>>P802.16-2001/Conformance01-20xx (as it is conforming to IEEE Std
>>>>802.16-2001). Is this your intention? If so, then this is the correct
>>>>number.
>>>>
>>>>My apologies for the confusion.
>>>>
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>
>>> >Jodi Haasz
>>> >
>>>>
>>>>Jodi,
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but I am still confused that you have "20xx" twice in the PAR
>>>>number. I don't think that was the agreed-to scheme. Our two previous
>>PARs
>>>>in the series are listed in the database as:
>>>>
>>>>P802.16/Conformance03-200x
>>>>P802.16/Conformance02
>>>>
>>>>Again, it's fine to have "20xx" once. But what is the point of having it
>>>>twice?
>>>>
>>>>Paul: what do you think?
>>>>
>>>>Roger
>>> >
>>>>
>>> >>>In regards to having 20xx twice in the number, the reason is that
>>since
>>> >>>this is a conformance document to the revision you are doing, there
>is
>>no
>>>>>>approval year yet. Paul Nikolich, Yvette HoSang and I have revised
>the
>>>>>>IEEE-SA PAR Numbering Policy and the number scheme was agreed to by
>>all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please let me know if the attached is satisfactory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(See attached file: 802-16-20xx_Conformance04-20xx.pdf)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jodi Haasz
>>>>>>Program Manager
>>>>>>International Stds Programs and Governance
>>>>>>Standards Activities
>>>>>>Phone +1 732 562 6367
> >>>>>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>>>>>>Email: j.haasz@ieee.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> >>
>>>>>
>>> >>Do we really need "20xx" twice in the PAR number? I am happy with zero
>>>>>times, and I would be OK with one. But two seems like too many.
>>>>>
>>>>>The first three in this series had the form P802.16/Conformance0n-200x.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you send me an update?
>>>>>
>>> >>Roger
>>>>>