Re: [802SEC] LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation Numbering

[Pat Thaler <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>]

Roger,

What you suggest for draft numbering is incorrect. Drafts are to start
P802 and not 802 - that I believe is IEEE standards practice and serves
to clearly distinguish between the drafts for a project and a standard.
The full thing we put on a draft is IEEE P802.na so if the P wasn't
there it would look like a standard. Also the draft revision number is
Di and unless something changed that was also IEEE standards practice -
not something we cooked up. 

Both IEEE 802.1 and 802.3 number their drafts that way: e.g. IEEE
P802.1af/D0.3 and IEEE P802.3as/D2.3. The draft revision number uniquely
identifies the draft so the date isn't part of the document number. The
date normally appears in the page header after the draft number. To me
the draft revision is more informative than a year and month because it
gives an idea of the status of the document you are looking at. For
example, when I see the number P802.3as/D2.3, I know that the draft is
the 3rd revision after working group ballot has started.

I agree with Bob and Tony that the P&P should only address document
naming for drafts if it does anything along those lines. It shouldn't
impose a document naming system for non-draft documents. 

For non-drafts, IEEE 802.1 uses something similar to IETF draft naming
with the author last name, group designation (admittedly there seems to
be some inconsistancy in the order of these two in the name) followed by
a short title and month and year of the meeting it was prepared for
(e.g. 0106). In IEEE 802.3, each group has its own document list so they
put the name as just <author last name>-<monthyear>-<nmuber>. Month year
is again a 4 digit representation of the two. If I ruled the world, I
would prefer year month (because it alphabetizes to chronological order)
and I would prefer that they added the project two letter designation. I
don't find the lack of project designation a serious problem because I
keep each projects files in separate directories. In any case, I find
that I can quickly locate the document I want even years later with the
.1 and .3 systems. I've worked in groups that use more of a pure number
for submitted documents and it is much harder to identify the right
documents unless one has an index.

P802.n{sc} or 802.n{tg}-yy/mm is obviously an incomplete system since a
group can have multiple submissions on a single day so one needs
something to distinguish amongst them.

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:53 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation
Numbering

The 802 numbering system was in place when 802.16 got started in 1999,
so we used it. We've basically been using it ever since, with a few
minor adjustments/improvements.

The current P&P suffers from two typos that were introduced in the 14
September 2005 revision. The corrections are:

P802.na-Di  =>  802.na/Di-yy/m
P802.n{sc}  =>  802.n{tg}-yy/m

The system works for us. In fact, we would have chaos without it. 
It's obviously not to everyone's taste.

There are still a few ambiguities in our system. At our last session, I
was informed by new participant that I need to fix those ambiguities and
fully document our numbering system. I offered to add this to my to-do
list.

Roger


At 10:20 PM +0000 06/02/07, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>Bob/Stuart -
>
>I must admit that this one snuck under my radar - when did we agree to 
>this fascinating piece of text?
>
>The one saving grace it has as far as I can tell is that *nobody* can 
>currently be in conformance with it, due to the fact that the 
>specification is ambiguous/broken for the non-draft ("Or") case.
>
>When I mentioned document numbering schemes and software with my WG a 
>plenary or so ago, I have to say that the level of enthusiasm was off 
>the scale. I'm sure I can leave it to your imagination as to which end 
>of the scale it was off.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 21:57 07/02/2006, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>Stuart:
>>
>>IEEE 802.3 certainly qualifies as one of the "others" of whom you have

>>"suspicions".
>>
>>I believe there is little support within 802.3 for the document 
>>numbering scheme, nor a perception that anything beyond a defined 
>>numbering plan for projects (and consequently standards) is required.

>>I would be happy to do a straw poll on Monday at my opening plenary 
>>meeting to more objectively determine the answers to the above or 
>>other related questions.
>>
>>--Bob Grow
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@OK-BRIT.COM]
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:15 AM
>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: [802SEC] LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation 
>>Numbering
>>Importance: High
>>
>>
>>Paul,
>>
>>In doing my normal reviewing of the various P&P's I asked my 
>>Vice-Chair (Harry Worstell) to confirm one issue area under the 
>>January 2006 Revised LMSC Rules relating to "Documentation Numbering" 
>>in clause 19.
>>
>>Believing at first that the rule related to Drafts only, but on second

>>review independently by myself and Harry we both came to the 
>>conclusion that it also related to WG's and TAGs. If this is truly the

>>case then Harry has officially advised me that:
>>
>>"Please be advised that IEEE 802.11 is unable to meet the new IEEE 802

>>LMSC Policies and Procedures dated January 2006 with respect to the 
>>new document numbering system until we acquire new software that can 
>>accommodate that numbering scheme".
>>
>>To verify the situation I asked Harry to further request an 
>>understanding of the rule from the LMSC 1st Vice-Chair responsible for

>>rules (Mat
>>Sherman)
>>who has confirmed our understanding of the rule.
>>
>>With this situation we believe that we and others are in violation of 
>>said rule, and look to other WG and TAG Chairs to take notice of this 
>>fact and for them to independently review our suspicions.
>>
>>As suggested in Mat's last email may be the rule should relate only to

>>Drafts as the original intention. But I ask you, that this is 
>>addressed urgently at the forthcoming March Plenary to everybodies
satisfaction.
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Stuart
>>
>>   _____
>>
>>From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>[mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:04 PM
>>To: hworstell@research.att.com
>>Cc: stuart.kerry@philips.com; stuart@ok-brit.com; apetrick@widefi.com;

>>paul.nikolich@ATT.NET
>>Subject: RE: LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation Numbering
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Harry,
>>
>>
>>
>>This has been a standing issue for me.  I recognize the 802.11 does 
>>not (and probably can't reasonably) follow this format.  I did once 
>>try
>>(unsuccessfully) to change / clarify this section so as to make it 
>>more acceptable.  I would encourage someone (Stuart?) to propose a 
>>specific change correcting it in such a way as to allow 802.11 to
comply with it.
>>This could be a simple as to clarify that this numbering system only 
>>applies to Drafts.
>>
>>
>>
>>Hope the comments are helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>Mat
>>
>>
>>
>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>>
>>   _____
>>
>>From: hworstell@research.att.com [mailto:hworstell@research.att.com]
>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:58 PM
>>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>Cc: stuart.kerry@philips.com; stuart@ok-brit.com; apetrick@widefi.com;

>>paul.nikolich@ATT.NET
>>Subject: LMSC Policies and Procedures - Documentation Numbering
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Matthew,
>>
>>
>>
>>In looking over the January 4, 2006 issue of the LMSC Policies and 
>>Procedures, in
>>
>>Section 19 - IEEE LMCS Draft Numbering Plan, it appears to be 
>>presenting a numbering
>>
>>system for the working group documents "sc = an optional subcommittee 
>>designator to be
>>
>>used specifically for tracking subcommittee submissions that are 
>>independent of the Working
>>
>>Group/TAG as a whole. Documents relevant to the whole Working 
>>Group/TAG will use the
>>
>>802.n-yy/m form. The allowed formats for a subcommittee designator
are:
>>one
>>letter, two letters,
>>
>>or one letter followed by one number. All other characters are 
>>specifically prohibited. "
>>
>>
>>
>>My question is are all working group documents other than drafts 
>>required to follow this numbering requirement?
>>
>>If so, this will be extremely difficult for the IEEE 802.11 Working 
>>Group to comply
>>
>>with.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>Harry Worstell
>>
>>
>>
>>19. IEEE LMSC Draft Numbering Plan
>>
>>This numbering scheme applies to all LMSC Working Groups and TAGs.
>>
>>It covers all IEEE 802 Drafts.
>>
>>LMSC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVISED PAGE 39 OF 42 FILE:
>>LMSC_P&P_NOVEMBER_2005_R051204.DOC
>>
>>The format for the document numbers will be as follows:
>>
>>Either P802.na-Di (formal draft standards)
>>
>>Or P802.n{sc} (all other documents & correspondence)
>>
>>Where:
>>
>>n = a Working Group/TAG Designator (i.e. 0, 1, ...),
>>
>>                     a = a PAR Series Designator (i.e. _, A, B, C,...)

>>for drafts of a document produced under an active
>>
>>                     PAR, and must include the {/Di} field,
>>
>>i = a Draft Revision Number for working documents produced under an 
>>active PAR. Digits for the number may be separated by '-' but should 
>>not use any other separators.
>>
>>yy = a year designator (i.e. 87, 88, 89, ...) to indicate the year in 
>>which the document number was assigned,
>>
>>m = a sequence number which starts at 1 at the beginning of each year 
>>and is increased by 1 each time a document number is assigned,
>>
>>sc = an optional subcommittee designator to be used specifically for 
>>tracking subcommittee submissions
>>
>>that are independent of the Working Group/TAG as a whole. Documents 
>>relevant to the whole Working Group/TAG
>>
>>will use the 802.n-yy/m form. The allowed formats for a subcommittee 
>>designator are: one letter, two letters, or one
>>
>>letter followed by one number. All other characters are specifically 
>>prohibited.
>>
>>With the exception of the grandfathered 802.1 numbering scheme, IEEE 
>>802 draft standards documents
>>
>>shall follow the numbering protocols outlined in the IEEE Standards 
>>Style Manual. One approved exception
>>
>>to these stated policies is that the numbering of draft standards 
>>amendments that convert to a revision
>>
>>project shall contain the phrase "-REV" preceding the alphabetical 
>>designation of the project.
>>
>>Harry R. Worstell
>>Sr. Technical Specialist
>>Communications Technology Research
>>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>Vice Chair, IEEE 802.11 Working Group
>>Room B233, Building 103
>>180 Park Avenue
>>P.O. Box 971
>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6915
>>Cell  +1(973) 727-5564
>>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5873
>>EMAIL: hworstell@research.att.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   _____
>>
>>
>>From: hworstell@research.att.com [mailto:hworstell@research.att.com]
>>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:38 AM
>>To: stuart.kerry@philips.com; stuart@ok-brit.com
>>Cc: apetrick@widefi.com; hworstell@att.com
>>Subject: New IEEE 802 Documentation numbering
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Stuart,
>>
>>Please be advised that IEEE 802.11 is unable to meet the new IEEE 802 
>>LMSC Policies and Procedures dated January 2006 with respect to the 
>>new document numbering system until we acquire new software that can 
>>accommodate that numbering scheme.
>>
>>Please inform the LMSC of our situation.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Harry Worstell
>>
>>
>>Harry R. Worstell
>>Sr. Technical Specialist
>>Communications Technology Research
>>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>Vice Chair, IEEE 802.11 Working Group
>>Room B233, Building 103
>>180 Park Avenue
>>P.O. Box 971
>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6915
>>Cell  +1(973) 727-5564
>>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5873
>>EMAIL: hworstell@research.att.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>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.
>
>----------
>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.

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.