Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
Carl,
Note that the difference you identify between a TAG and WG is called out
in the P&P, but is not always relevant for all uses of the term WG/TAG.
I would only modify the cases where this difference is not relevant.
I have added 'TG' to the Acronym list, but to save space, said it meant
either 'Task Group' or 'Task Force'. Again, I could call out a
distinction, but currently I don't believe there is one (except in
name).
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@WK3C.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:22 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Editorial
>
> Mat:
>
> A few observations on your "more extensive" changes, and
> desired changes.
>
> 1. If a TAG doesn't mind being a WG in the P&P then I'll
> have a harder time arguing against a task force being
> abrievated as TG.
Mat and Bob ...
There is a distinct difference between a TAG and a WG ... TAGs may not
write
(full use) standards - only Recommended Practices and other "specialty"
documents within their chartered purview ...
Why would a task force be abbreviated "TG" ???
> 2. No problem on lower case plenary and interim. Unless the
> WG plenary change needs to distinguish a Plenary (i.e., LMSC
> Plenary) from a generic plenary (i.e., WG Plenary or LMSC
> Plenary). But then, capitalization being the only
> distinguishing characteristic would probably be a bit too
> subtle for me.
I have no problem with the little p ...
> 3. Subclause 17.1 has bigger problems than a non-existent
> working guide. We shouldn't reiterate NesCom and SB
> requirements at all, only reference them. It is in conflict
> with 7.4 (two plenary sessions instead of six months). The
> second bullet is instructions for filling out the PAR form
> and don't belong here any more than the bad reference.
Agree with Bob ...
> 4. It seems strange to me to replace things like "working
> groups" with WG and leave the occurances already in the P&P
> of "WGs". Your attempt to have the singular be defined as
> either singular or plural is incomplete.
Agree with Bob ...
Regards,
Carl
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.