[802SEC] Request for assistance on ISO/IEC JTC1 project
Dear EC members,
Please see the below message from Andrew Myles who is leading the 802-wide effort on responding to the ISO/IEC/JTC1 project. Please forward in request for input to your WG members and have them reply directly to Andrew at andrew.myles@cisco.com.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear IEEE 802.x WG members
The quick story (with details below) is:
a.. Potential problems related the approval of WAPI as an amendment to ISO/IEC 8802-11 were recently avoided
b.. The WAPI/802.11i debate highlighted important questions regarding the relationship between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC
c.. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 has now started a process to review the cooperation agreement with IEEE 802
d.. IEEE 802 LMSC is planning to make a submission to the cooperation agreement review
e.. Comments are requested from IEEE 802 members with a particular focus on identified major issues
Note responses are due by CoB on Monday 28 August 2006 to Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com). Also note that this request is applicable to any IEEE 802 WG that may want to standardise internationally through ISO/IEC.
Andrew Myles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential problems related the approval of WAPI as an amendment to ISO/IEC 8802-11 were recently avoided
In 2005, both WAPI (proposed by SAC, the Chinese National Body) and IEEE 802.11i (proposed by the UK National Body on behalf of the IEEE 802.11 WG) were submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 for international standardisation as amendments to ISO/IEC 8802-11 (plus various amendments) using the JTC1 Fast Track ballot procedure. ISO/IEC 8802-11 is effectively the same as the IEEE 802.11 standard.
Approval by ISO/IEC JTC1 of both amendments as international standards would have been problematic because the two amendments contained contradictory editing instructions. Approval of only the WAPI amendment would have also been problematic because this would have made it almost impossible for any further IEEE 802.11 amendments to be submitted to ISO/IEC for international standardisation given the significant differences that would have existed between IEEE 802.11 (using 802.11i) and ISO/IEC 8802-11 (using WAPI).
Fortunately, these potential problems do not need to be addressed because in June 2006 the Fast Track ballot on WAPI failed and the Fast Track ballot on IEEE 802.11i passed. IEEE 802.11i has now been published as an ISO/IEC international standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WAPI/802.11i debate highlighted important questions regarding the relationship between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC
During the 802.11i/WAPI debate, the existing cooperation agreement between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1 was quoted on multiple occasions to support various positions related to whether or not IEEE 802.11i and/or WAPI should be approved as international standards.
The existing cooperation agreement is documented in "ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001: Overview of Local Area Network Standards" (attached). This document mostly contains a general (and somewhat dated) introduction to IEEE 802 standards for wired and wireless LANs. However, clause 4 defines a detailed process for cooperation between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1 that enables almost automatic international standardisation of IEEE 802 standards. This agreement was based on earlier ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 documents and resolutions, including "ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 6N11917: Procedures for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1 and IEEE 802 LMSC Cooperative Working" (attached).
Interestingly, it appears that the detailed cooperation process defined in ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001 has never been used in full because the annex that is supposed to catalogue standards approved using the process is empty. In many cases, IEEE 802 standards have not been submitted to ISO/IEC for international standardisation. Where IEEE 802 standards have been submitted to ISO/IEC, they have always (?) been approved using the JTC1 Fast Track ballot procedure. An attempt to allow ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 NBs to comment on the IEEE 802.11ma draft according to the defined process recently failed because the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Secretariat failed to pass on liaisons from the IEEE 802.11 WG to the NBs. The lack of use of the cooperation agreement over a five year period immediately calls into question its effectiveness and usefulness.
In ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 N13128 (attached), the Chinese NB states the current cooperation agreement between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 needs "review, clarification and improvement". They highlight particular concerns relating to copyright ownership and potential competition from the IEEE as a developer of international/global standards. They also raise the question of whether the ISO/IEC 8802-11 standard can be modified within ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1 without approval from the IEEE 802.11 WG.
Many IEEE 802 members are also concerned about the contents and effectiveness of this cooperation agreement, if only because the current agreement did not protect members from having to put a huge amount of effort and resources into the 802.11i/WAPI issue over a three period, with no useful gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 has now started a process to review the cooperation agreement with IEEE 802
In June 2006, the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 plenary decided (see attached document ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 N13127) to request the SC6 NBs, IEEE SA, IEEE 802 LMSC, JTC1 and ITTF to review the various documents that define the current cooperation agreement. The documents (all attached) are:
a.. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 6N11917: Procedures for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1 and IEEE 802 LMSC Cooperative Working
b.. ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001: Overview of Local Area Network Standards
c.. Other relevant document, including motion 6.3.1 from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 6N11240
The process requires input to the ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 project editor by 27 September 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEEE 802 LMSC is planning to make a submission to the cooperation agreement review
IEEE 802 LMSC has received a request from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 to participate in the review of the cooperation agreement ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1 and IEEE 802.11 LMSC. Paul Nikolich (Chair of IEEE 802 LMSC) has requested Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com) to facilitate the development of an IEEE 802 LMSC position for approval by IEEE 802 LMSC and subsequent submission to the ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 project editor.
Unfortunately, the time scales are relatively short. In an attempt to satisfy the required timescales, the following timetable will be used:
a.. 21 Aug: Paul Nikolich sends this request to IEEE 802 LMSC members for forwarding to the various Working Groups .
b.. 28 Aug: IEEE 802 members respond to Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com) with comments and possibly volunteer to assist in following steps
c.. 4 Sept: Volunteers complete draft proposed IEEE 802 LMSC position document
d.. 5 Sept: Paul Nikolich distributes draft proposed IEEE 802 LMSC position document to IEEE 802 LMSC and other interested parties
e.. 6 Sept: Andrew Myles hosts a teleconference to discuss position with any interested parties
f.. 15 Sept: Volunteers complete final proposed IEEE 802 LMSC position document
g.. 16 Sept: Paul Nikolich distributes draft proposed IEEE 802 LMSC position document to IEEE 802 LMSC for 10 day e-mail ballot
h.. 26 Sept: Paul Nikolich submits approved IEEE 802 LMSC position document to ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 project editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments are requested from IEEE 802 members with a particular focus on identified major issues
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 are requesting comments on any of the documents related to the cooperation agreement (including 6N11917, TR 8802-1:2001, 6N11240).
However, to assist the process of developing an IEEE 802 position, IEEE 802 members are requested to focus on the following issues:
a.. Does the material in ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 not directly related to the cooperation process have any value?
a.. Is there any need to keep or update this material, given it is difficult to maintain?
b.. Should IEEE 802 submit any/some/all IEEE 802.x standards or amendments to ISO/IEC for international standardisation?
a.. If so, why? For which IEEE 802 standards or amendments?
b.. If not, why not? For which IEEE 802 standards or amendments?
c.. How should ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 /WG1 NBs make technical input into IEEE 802.x standards or amendments as they are being developed?
a.. Note: the NBs could provide a valuable perspective based on different assumption from those of typical 802.x members
b.. How can the existing process be made to work better or is a new process required?
c.. Could we use technology better to make the process smoother?
d.. Should NB's be given the opportunity to join the Sponsor Ballot Pools? It this possible under current rules?
e.. Should NB's be given the opportunity to join the Work Group Ballot Pools? It this possible under current rules?
d.. Should IEEE 802 have sole responsibility for all development and maintenance of IEEE 802.x standards submitted to ISO/IEC for international standardisation
a.. Note: this was a fundamental issue in the 802.11i/WAPI debate
b.. Note: giving IEEE 802 responsibility for development (with ISO/IEC input) avoids any issues related to two organisations making independent changes to the same document
e.. Should IEEE 802 retain copyright on any IEEE 802.x standards submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 for international standardisation?
a.. Note: this appears to be the case in the current cooperation agreement, except when an IEEE 802 standard is subjected to Fast Track ballot
b.. Note: this also appears to be the current practice, based on comments made by UK NB during recent Fast Track ballot on WAP
c.. Note: ISO/IEC might not need copyright unless they wanted to make changes independent of IEEE 802
f.. On what basis should ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 accept IEEE 802 standards submitted for international standardisation?
a.. How many NBs would be required to veto automatic international standardisation?
b.. What is the alternate process if automatic standardisation is vetoed?
Responses related to other issues or the detailed comments on the documents are also invited.
All responses should be sent to Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com) by CoB on Monday 28 August 2006.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
DocsForReview.zip