Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation

G'day Carl,

I responded to Geoff's suggestions with a new version (attached). Geoff
has not yet confirmed it, but I believe his comments have now been
resolved (I hope so anyway). Do you the modifications satisfy you?

Andrew 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:03 AM
To: 'Geoff Thompson'; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation

Colleagues,

Sorry ... But upon reviewing Geoff's comments I have to agree with the
points he makes (some of which I hadn't viewed in the same light until
Geoff's comments.

Therefore, I feel that I have to change my previous approve to
DISAPPROVE.
If Geoff's comments are satisfied I will change my vote back to approve.

I would have responded to Geoff's comments sooner, but for the time
offset here in Australia.

Carl
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:10 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation

Paul/Colleagues-

I have to join Carl and recommend that these slides be DISAPPROVED

Please examine these points carefully. I believe they are worthy of
consideration

The text, early on (slide 4) says:
         - . 8802-1 should be modified so that international
standardisation can always be achieved ...

...which (were there an appropriate WTO case and were I supporting the
"other" side) I would take as evidence for presentation to the judging
body: "Here, the IEEE even admits that they are NOT a lower case
international standard unless they are blessed by ISO/IEC.

I do not think we want to say that
I do not think that is the case
I think is not an appropriate position for 802 to take wrt the position
that the IEEE-SA takes for its standards.

Slide 7 statements open a Pandora's box of issues that might well be
nurturing to a relationship with SC6.

Slide 9, last bullet
Change:
A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with ISO/IEC
is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of establishing
"international standard" status for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC
using a simple documented cooperation process.

To:
A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with ISO/IEC
is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of widening "international
standard" recognition for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a
simple documented cooperation process

Slide 11:
The title:
"8802-1 should be modified so that international standardisation can
always be achieved ..."
should be changed per my critique of slide 4 above.

I support slides 12 through 21

Please carefully consider these items and reconsider your vote

Sincerely,

Geoff Thompson

At 04:23 PM 9/19/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC Members,
>
>A revised version of the IEEE 802 recommendation on the 8802-1 and 
>related documents requested by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
>
>Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached SC6 
>recommendation version 07 dated 19SEP06 (appropriately edited to remove

>the "DRAFT" and "Change History" text.)
>
>Moved-Tony Jeffree Seconded-Mat Sherman
>
>Please cast your vote as soon as possible.  The ballot closes the 
>earlier of either 25 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member has 
>cast a
vote.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>----------
>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.


G'day all

After further reflecting on Geoff's comments, I think we can make some
simple changes to satisfy his concerns. Geoff?

The changes are fully documented on the Change History page of the
attached document but briefly they are:

* Changed "8802-1 should be modified so that international
standardisation can always be achieved" to "8802-1 should be modified so
that an ISO/IEC standard can always be achieved" on both pp 4 & pp 11.
This avoids the issue highlighted by Geoff by not equating
"international standardisation" with the what ISO/IEC do.

* Changed "establishing" to "widening" exactly as suggested by Geoff

* Softened language on pp 7 with "Recent attempts to use the endorsement
process defined in 8802-1 for 802.11ma approval failed after SC6 NBs did
not receive Liaisons from 802.11 WG"

* Removed "Probably because it definitely gives an 802.x document
"standards status"" on pp7 based on comments by Geoff on pp 4 and pp 9

I hope we are now over the line!!!!!!! This is where I start praying ;)

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) 
Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:44 AM
To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Paul Nikolich
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation

G'day Geoff,

I believe Carl's issues have now been resolved and he has now voted
APPROVE.

You have interpreted "8802-1 should be modified so that international
standardisation can always be achieved" to mean "the IEEE even admits
that they are NOT a lower case international standard unless they are
blessed by ISO/IEC". I believe you have misinterpreted what the sentence
actually says. It only says that the process in 8802-1 should be defined
so that an ISO/IEC international standard results. Alternatively, it
says that the "endorsement process" provides no value to anyone. The
evidence is that the endorsement process has never been used. It does
not say that IEEE cannot achieve international standardisation in
another way (sorry for a double negative), including by recognition of
IEEE as a truly "international" SDO.

You have interpreted "A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative
relationship with ISO/IEC is that it provides 802 WG's with the option
of establishing "international standard" status for an 802.x standard
through ISO/IEC using a simple documented cooperation process" as
implying that we believe IEEE is not an international SDO. However, I
believe you have neglected to parse the important phrase "... through
ISO/IEC". The sentence only talks about establishing an international
standard through ISO/IEC. It does not say anything about or disallow
other ways of establishing an international standard. 

In both cases we could improve the language but I believe any risk of
misinterpretation is small because we have made our view about the IEEE
status as an international SDO relative to other SDOs and the reasons
for potentially using ISO/IEC clear on pp9 as follows:
* "The WTO & similar organisations give special status to "international
standards" that assists global acceptance"
* "The definition of an "international standard" is not always clear,
however we note that both ITU-R & ITU-T have recognised IEEE as an
international SDO by granting IEEE membership in the same category as
ISO"
* "Nevertheless, an ISO/IEC standard may be more acceptable to some
stakeholders as an "international standard""

On pp7 the only item of potential difficulty I cam see is "Recent
attempts to use the endorsement process defined in 8802-1 for 802.11ma
approval failed when multiple Liaison statements to SC6 were not
forwarded to the SC6 NBs". This statement is entirely true and was
merely being used to show there are practical difficulties in the
existing process. I guess the SC6 Secretariat could be upset by this
statement although they are not named, but they would need to be very
"thin skinned".

Andrew

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 6:10 AM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation

Paul/Colleagues-

I have to join Carl and recommend that these slides be DISAPPROVED

Please examine these points carefully. I believe they are worthy of
consideration

The text, early on (slide 4) says:
         - * 8802-1 should be modified so that international
standardisation can always be achieved ...

...which (were there an appropriate WTO case and were I supporting the
"other" side) I would take as evidence for presentation to the judging
body: "Here, the IEEE even admits that they are NOT a lower case
international standard unless they are blessed by ISO/IEC.

I do not think we want to say that
I do not think that is the case
I think is not an appropriate position for 802 to take wrt the position
that the IEEE-SA takes for its standards.

Slide 7 statements open a Pandora's box of issues that might well be
nurturing to a relationship with SC6.

Slide 9, last bullet
Change:
A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with ISO/IEC
is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of establishing
"international standard" status for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC
using a simple documented cooperation process.

To:
A potential benefit for 802 of a cooperative relationship with ISO/IEC
is that it provides 802 WG's with the option of widening "international
standard" recognition for an 802.x standard through ISO/IEC using a
simple documented cooperation process

Slide 11:
The title:
"8802-1 should be modified so that international standardisation can
always be achieved ..."
should be changed per my critique of slide 4 above.

I support slides 12 through 21

Please carefully consider these items and reconsider your vote

Sincerely,

Geoff Thompson

At 04:23 PM 9/19/2006 , Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC Members,
>
>A revised version of the IEEE 802 recommendation on the 8802-1 and 
>related documents requested by SC6 is attached for EC approval.
>
>Motion: The 802 LMSC EC resolves to adopt the attached SC6 
>recommendation version 07 dated 19SEP06 (appropriately edited to remove

>the "DRAFT" and "Change History" text.)
>
>Moved-Tony Jeffree Seconded-Mat Sherman
>
>Please cast your vote as soon as possible.  The ballot closes the 
>earlier of either 25 Sept 2006 or 24 hours after every EC member has
cast a vote.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>----------
>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.

xx-06-xxxx-09-000-review of 8802-1.ppt