Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial

["Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>]

Mat:

I don't agree with your assertion that it nullifies the statement.  That
statement is a clear backup for anything we might miss in a search.  I'm
not comfortable that every requirement placed on a WG would be found by
searching "WG" and "working group".  It places the burden of exception
to be completely accurate, but it doesn't put the burden to be
completely accurate in including TAGs in every WG requirement.

--Bob Grow 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:14 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial

Folks,

The feedback so far has been limited, but based on that feedback it
sound like the desired path is to use WG/TAG everywhere (except where we
currently mean only WG or only TAG).

The problem with this is the line in the TAG rules that say all rules
for WG apply to TAG (except as noted otherwise).  The problem is that
this line essentially nullifies the intent of using WG only elsewhere in
the document.  Minimally you would need to notate it WG (but not TAG).
This is particularly an issue in the section titled 'LMSC Working Groups
(WGs)'.  This is a big subclause.  And almost all of it (except as
already excepted) applys to TAGs.  The term WG/TAG would not make much
sense particularly in that subclause. I don't think we want to replicate
all of this subclause in the TAG subclause. It will greatly complicate
the document and tracking future updates.

For now a compromise could be that anywhere outside of the subclause we
use WG/TAG, and clariy the rule in the TAG subclause that all of
subclause 7.2 on WG applies to TAGs except as excepted here.

Does this makes sense?

I will put out the teleconference notice shortly, and will check on any
other issues for the editorial change tomorrow.  My default position is
of course that if anyone objects to any change on this particular update
(since it is supposed to be editorial) the text stays as it currently
is.

Regards,

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: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:47 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial

Note that the date of the teleconference should read 2/23.  This
Thursday at Noon EST.

 

Thanks,

 

Mat

 

Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Senior Member Technical Staff 
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:17 AM
To: 'STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org'
Subject: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial

 

Hi folks,

 

I want to take a straw poll, but first a reminder:

 

There will be a teleconference this Thursday (2/19/06) at 12 PM EST to
discuss the 'Editorial' P&P revision.  I will be on the road again, but
will attempt to have a webex up and running.  I'll provide details later
this week.

 

 

Strawpoll:

 

            Should we replace existing occurrences of the term 'WG/TAG'
with 'WG'?

 

 

Background:

 

The biggest issue raised on the editorial ballot was the question of
using WG as opposed to WG/TAG in the P&P.  Sometimes we use WG, and
sometimes we use 'WG/TAG'. A couple of folks objected to my suggestion
of uniformly using WG rather than sometimes using WG/TAG.  The general
objection was that ambiguities might creep in.

 

My problem is that there are already a very large number of uses of
'Working Group' to refer to a WG/TAG in the existing P&P.  To 'clean'
all that up would be a very large task and I think will greatly clutter
the P&P.  Some of the subclauses I feel currently suffer from these
ambiguities are:  7.1.4.1  (letter e and g) 8.1.1  9.1, 10.1, 14.1.2.
Interesting while most of 7.2 uses only WG subcluase 7.2.4.4 use WG/TAG
and sometimes just WG.  This is not an exhaustive list, just some of the
place that might currently be considered ambiguous.

 

So, I wish to first draw attention to the following line for Subclause
7.3 'LMSC Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)'

 

            "The TAGs operate under the same rules as the Working
Groups, with the following exceptions:"

 

The text then goes on to identify a bunch of exceptions.  It is possible
that through time additional exceptions might have been identified
elsewhere in the P&P (I'd prefer that we collect them all in 7.3 if
others exist).  But fundamentally, this subclause says that any rule
that applies to a WG (not explicitly called out as an exception in this
clause of the P&P) also applies for a TAG.  As such, I'd prefer to
define things in the P&P as explicitly for a WG and implicitly for a
TAG.  If there are exceptions, they should really be called out in 7.3.
I want to see if I have enough support to pass a ballot on this before I
invest the effort in it.

 

Please review some of the subclauses I've identified for ambiguous use
of the terms and comment on my straw poll.  If you prefer an alternate
resolution please provide it.

 

Thanks,

 

Mat

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Senior Member Technical Staff 
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.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.