| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
G'day Geoff
Oooops, missed that one
Steve, could you live with this version? Please say yes! If not, could I
chat with you later today in Melbourne?
Other EC members, could you please vote ASAP?
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 11:43 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: wk3c@wk3c.com; Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
Andrew-
Thanks for the fast turn-around. Comments as I look through it.
Slide 4: Good change Approved
Slide 7 Not wild about it still, but I can live with it
Slide 9 Please complete the change in last bullet
(i.e. from "status" to "recognition")
Slide 11: Good change Approved
So you are only one word away from my APPROVE vote.
Thanks,
Geoff
At 06:04 PM 9/20/2006 , Andrew Myles \(amyles\) wrote:
>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.
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C6DD0C.8A1CF804"
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
>25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:28:48 +0800
>Message-ID:
><70CDE339FEE838489EE9580C31AD5765019E79DD@xmb-hkg-414.apac.cisco.com>
>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>Thread-Topic: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later
>than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
>Thread-Index: Acbc8vrPcRPNsX6kQAaCBqPcaDpxdAADcX2AAAKeO0A=
>From: "Andrew Myles \(amyles\)" <amyles@cisco.com>
>To: "Andrew Myles \(amyles\)" <amyles@cisco.com>,
> "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortel.com>,
> "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG>
>Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>
>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-10-000-review of 8802-1.ppt