Re: [802SEC] [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation+++tentative result on v10
G'day Paul,
I agree with Roger that v11 is incrementally better than v10. However,
you now "have the conch" (from Lord of the Flies) on how to handle the
next step. Maybe the EC members could quickly vote on v11? Or maybe you
could send v10, quickly followed by v11 as a clarification?
The absolute drop dead date for getting the input to Robin is 27 Sept.
However, I am not sure where in the world the date is measured. Could be
Geneva (ISO HQ), Seoul (SC6 Secretariat), UK (Robin Tasker's home), or
somewhere else. Geoff, do you know?
Andrew
________________________________
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, 25 September 2006 2:40 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
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+++tentative result on v10
Thanks, Andrew. I'm mostly happy with your suggestions. I don't fully
agree with everything, but I would vote Approve on v11.
I really think we should go with v11 instead of v10. If you read the
documents in full, they are pretty close. However, v11 is pretty v10 is
not fully self-consistent, especially where headlines don't exactly
match the content. We have in the past seen cases in which a national
body has taken pieces of IEEE contributions out of context and made it
look as if we are saying something that we did not intend. v10 would
make that too easy.
Roger
G'day Paul,
I have processed Roger's comments into a v11 and have attached v11 with
changes marked in red, and a clean version. You already have a clean
v10. Most of Roger's suggestions improve the document, although I have
modified a few of his suggestions. He will need to respond with his
approval of my changes.
I have no idea how you want to handle this late change procedurally
given that the document is due to Robin Tasker on the 27 Sept.
Personally, I believe either v10 is good enough but v11 is slightly
better and clearer. .
Andrew
BTW I assume that you will be sending the document to Robin?????
________________________________
RM> I'm sorry that other commitments have kept me disengaged from this
discussion until now. Nevertheless, I am voting with four days still
left in the ballot period and hope for consideration of my comments.
Considered below
RM> I am voting Disapprove. I very much appreciate Andrew's excellent
work and patience, as well as the valuable comments of my EC colleagues.
Thanks ;)
RM> However, I still see significant weaknesses with the proposal and
cannot vote to approve. However, I would vote Approve if my comments
were accepted. I have tried to make my explanations and remedies clear
and thorough. I have indicated that most of these comments are
editorial, but I still think they are substantive and (except where
noted) they are all part of my disapprove vote.
See below
RM> Comments:
RM> (1) [Editorial] The Slide 11 title says "8802-1 should be modified
so that an ISO/IEC standard can always be achieved" is an inappropriate
title. Some would infer that this means we are insisting that all 802
standards are adopted as ISO/IEC standards. Others would infer that it
is a statement that IEEE insists that the only acceptable process is one
that guarantees that every 802 proposal into ISO/IEC is adopted. Either
way, this comes across as an arrogant approach that would inhibit
support within ISO/IEC. Furthermore, the title does not reflect the
content of the slide, which proposes much less demanding language.
That's why I call this comment editorial.
It was certainly not the intent that all 802 standards be adopted as
ISO/IEC standards. The 802 WGs always have the choice as to whether of
not a particular standard should be adopted. This is made clear on pp 16
(of attached, the page numbers have changed by one because history page
removed)
RM> Remedy:
-Change "8802-1 should be modified so that an ISO/IEC standard can
always be achieved" to ""Process should be modified to encourage
adoption of endorsed standards as 8802-x standards".
-Make the same change on Slide 4.
That said, your proposed language is fine with slight modification also
based on your comments below, "The agreement should allow the adoption
of endorsed standards as 8802-x standards"
RM> (2) [Editorial] Slide 6 says "Are 8802-xx standards covered by IPR
statements made to 802?" But the term "IPR" is too broad here; the
correct word is "patents". Furthermore, no IPR statements are made to
802; instead, Letters of Assurance are filed with IEEE-SA.
Agreed
RM> Remedy:
-Change to "Are 8802-xx standards covered by patent Letters of Assurance
made to IEEE-SA?"
Changed to "Are 8802-xx standards covered by patent LoA's made to
IEEE-SA?"
RM> -Likewise, everywhere on Slide 19, change "IPR" to "patent".
Done, also on pp 11
RM> -In the first use of "LoA" on Slide 19, change to "Letter of
Assurance (LoA)".
Already covered by pp 2
RM> (3) [Editorial] On Slide 13, "Specify only 802 has the authority to
make changes to the 8802-x versions of 802.x standards" is inappropriate
from an ISO/IEC perspective. ISO/IEC cannot and will not grant to 802
the right to change 8802 standards arbitrarily. Furthermore, the title
does not reflect the content of the slide, which proposes much less
demanding language. That's why I call this comment editorial.
RM> Remedy:
-Change to "Specify that changes to the 8802-x versions of 802.x
standards require IEEE 802 concurrence"
-Make the same change in Slide 12.
Done, your language is nicer
RM> On Slide 18, change "Assuming 802 becomes the authority for all
changes to 8802-x standards" to "Assuming 802 has approval authority for
all changes to 8802-x standards"
Done
RM> (4) [Technical, not required] The process described on Slide 16 is,
in my view, awkward, redundant and impractical. I don't understand why
ISO/IEC should have to run one ballot to endorse the 802 standard and a
second ballot to adopt it as an 8802 standard. If we think the second
step is required, then we must think that the endorsement process
doesn't satisfy the needs. So why bother with in at all? It's a lot of
trouble, and it would force a long delay before adoption.
Personally, I believe that "endorsement" is not enough. Who cares about
endorsement? Is endorsement enough under trade rules? If endorsement is
so great then why haven't we bothered with it in the past? Actually this
is a complex issue that I would love to talk about with you at some
point - maybe in Dallas?
RM> Remedy: I am not proposing a remedy at this time, because I think
that 802 is too far along with its decision-making process to
reconsider. If it were earlier in the process, I would suggest that
propose to endorse either the endorsement process or the adoption
process, but not both. Personally, I'd prefer a modified version of
endorsement.
No change requested
RM> (5) [Editorial] Slide 4 says "SC6 has started a review of the 8802-1
cooperation agreement". This is not the whole story. 6N13127 is seeking
comments three items: 1. 6N11917: Procedures for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1
and IEEE 802 LMSC Cooperative Working 2. TR 8802-1:2001 3. All relevant
resolutions
Correct, as noted on pp 7
RM> Remedy:
-Change "SC6 has started a review of the 8802-1 cooperation agreement"
to "SC6, via 6N13127, is seeking comments on the method of cooperation
between SC6/WG1 and IEEE 802."
Changed to "SC6 has started a review with all stakeholders of issues
related to cooperation with 802" to be consistent with comment below and
resulting change
RM> -Likewise: Change title of Slide 8 from "SC6 has started a review to
resolve the problems with the 8802-1 cooperation agreement" to "SC6 has
started a review to resolve the problems with the 802 cooperation".
Changed to "SC6 has started a review with all stakeholders of issues
related to cooperation with 802"
RM> (6) [Technical] My Comment 5 is related to a broader problem that is
a bit harder to solve. Our document revolves around suggestions to
change 8802-1 so as to improve the process. But the request for comments
doesn't force us to consider 8802-1 as the only venue for the process. I
believe that 8802-1 is the wrong venue to describe the process. In my
view, 8802-1 was, from the start, an inappropriate place to define
procedures. It's a Technical Report, not a procedural agreement between
IEEE and ISO/IEC. There is no way, procedurally, to turn 8802-1 into a
true agreement. There is, for instance, no place for IEEE to sign it.
Good points
RM> Remedy: I think it is too late to suggest an alternative type of
document to contain the process. However, we can at least stop insisting
that 8802-1 be the right venue. If we make the following changes, we
will still be specifying the kind of process we want, but we won't
saying that process needs to be defined in 8802-1:
-On Slide 11, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title -On Slide 12,
change "8802-1 should..." to "Process should..."
-On Slide 13, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title -On Slide 13,
change "This requires 8802-1 to specify" to "This requires process to
specify"
-On Slide 14, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in both
places in the Proposed resolution column -On Slide 15, change "8802-1"
to "Process" in the title -On Slide 16, change "8802-1" to "Process" in
the title -On Slide 16, change "modified process for 8802-1" to
"modified process"
-On Slide 17, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in both
places in the Proposed resolution column -On Slide 18, change "8802-1"
to "Process" in the title and in the Proposed resolution column -On
Slide 19, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title -On Slide 20, change
"8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in the Proposed resolution column
I have accepted the spirit of your suggestion but changed it to "Any
agreement ..." rather than "Process ...".
RM> (7) [Technical] Slide 21 says "8802-1 should not contain any
technical material". Likewise, Slide 12 says 8802-1 should "Not contain
any technical material." It's true that 8802-1 has both technical and
procedural content, and that's not good. But this proposal would remove
the wrong part. It really doesn't make any sense for us to recommend
that ISO/IEC maintain a "Technical Report" and insist that it be without
technical content.
I hope you agree that 8802-1 currently contains a lot of technical
information that does not need to be there. We need to remove this info.
Presumably the technical part of the technical report would be the
references to 8802.x and 802.x standards. There is no intent to remove
this
RM> Remedy:
-On Slide 12, delete "Not contain any technical material"
-Delete Slide 21.
I have softened the language. Have a look
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
<mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org> ] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Friday, 22 September 2006 3:28 PM
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+++tentative result on v10
Paul,
I'm sorry that other commitments have kept me disengaged from this
discussion until now. Nevertheless, I am voting with four days still
left in the ballot period and hope for consideration of my comments.
I am voting Disapprove. I very much appreciate Andrew's excellent work
and patience, as well as the valuable comments of my EC colleagues.
However, I still see significant weaknesses with the proposal and cannot
vote to approve. However, I would vote Approve if my comments were
accepted. I have tried to make my explanations and remedies clear and
thorough. I have indicated that most of these comments are editorial,
but I still think they are substantive and (except where noted) they are
all part of my disapprove vote.
Comments:
(1) [Editorial] The Slide 11 title says "8802-1 should be modified so
that an ISO/IEC standard can always be achieved" is an inappropriate
title. Some would infer that this means we are insisting that all 802
standards are adopted as ISO/IEC standards. Others would infer that it
is a statement that IEEE insists that the only acceptable process is one
that guarantees that every 802 proposal into ISO/IEC is adopted. Either
way, this comes across as an arrogant approach that would inhibit
support within ISO/IEC. Furthermore, the title does not reflect the
content of the slide, which proposes much less demanding language.
That's why I call this comment editorial.
Remedy:
-Change "8802-1 should be modified so that an ISO/IEC standard can
always be achieved" to ""Process should be modified to encourage
adoption of endorsed standards as 8802-x standards".
-Make the same change on Slide 4.
(2) [Editorial] Slide 6 says "Are 8802-xx standards covered by IPR
statements made to 802?" But the term "IPR" is too broad here; the
correct word is "patents". Furthermore, no IPR statements are made to
802; instead, Letters of Assurance are filed with IEEE-SA.
Remedy:
-Change to "Are 8802-xx standards covered by patent Letters of Assurance
made to IEEE-SA?"
-Likewise, everywhere on Slide 19, change "IPR" to "patent".
-In the first use of "LoA" on Slide 19, change to "Letter of Assurance
(LoA)".
(3) [Editorial] On Slide 13, "Specify only 802 has the authority to make
changes to the 8802-x versions of 802.x standards" is inappropriate from
an ISO/IEC perspective. ISO/IEC cannot and will not grant to 802 the
right to change 8802 standards arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the title does not reflect the content of the slide, which
proposes much less demanding language. That's why I call this comment
editorial.
Remedy:
-Change to "Specify that changes to the 8802-x versions of 802.x
standards require IEEE 802 concurrence"
-Make the same change in Slide 12.
On Slide 18, change "Assuming 802 becomes the authority for all changes
to 8802-x standards" to "Assuming 802 has approval authority for all
changes to 8802-x standards"
(4) [Technical, not required] The process described on Slide 16 is, in
my view, awkward, redundant and impractical. I don't understand why
ISO/IEC should have to run one ballot to endorse the 802 standard and a
second ballot to adopt it as an 8802 standard. If we think the second
step is required, then we must think that the endorsement process
doesn't satisfy the needs. So why bother with in at all? It's a lot of
trouble, and it would force a long delay before adoption.
Remedy: I am not proposing a remedy at this time, because I think that
802 is too far along with its decision-making process to reconsider. If
it were earlier in the process, I would suggest that propose to endorse
either the endorsement process or the adoption process, but not both.
Personally, I'd prefer a modified version of endorsement.
(5) [Editorial] Slide 4 says "SC6 has started a review of the 8802-1
cooperation agreement". This is not the whole story. 6N13127 is seeking
comments three items:
1. 6N11917: Procedures for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1 and IEEE 802 LMSC
Cooperative Working 2. TR 8802-1:2001 3. All relevant resolutions
Remedy:
-Change "SC6 has started a review of the 8802-1 cooperation agreement"
to "SC6, via 6N13127, is seeking comments on the method of cooperation
between SC6/WG1 and IEEE 802."
-Likewise: Change title of Slide 8 from "SC6 has started a review to
resolve the problems with the 8802-1 cooperation agreement" to "SC6 has
started a review to resolve the problems with the 802 cooperation".
(6) [Technical] My Comment 5 is related to a broader problem that is a
bit harder to solve. Our document revolves around suggestions to change
8802-1 so as to improve the process. But the request for comments
doesn't force us to consider 8802-1 as the only venue for the process. I
believe that 8802-1 is the wrong venue to describe the process. In my
view, 8802-1 was, from the start, an inappropriate place to define
procedures. It's a Technical Report, not a procedural agreement between
IEEE and ISO/IEC. There is no way, procedurally, to turn 8802-1 into a
true agreement. There is, for instance, no place for IEEE to sign it.
Remedy: I think it is too late to suggest an alternative type of
document to contain the process. However, we can at least stop insisting
that 8802-1 be the right venue. If we make the following changes, we
will still be specifying the kind of process we want, but we won't
saying that process needs to be defined in 8802-1:
-On Slide 11, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title -On Slide 12,
change "8802-1 should..." to "Process should..."
-On Slide 13, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title -On Slide 13,
change "This requires 8802-1 to specify" to "This requires process to
specify"
-On Slide 14, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in both
places in the Proposed resolution column -On Slide 15, change "8802-1"
to "Process" in the title -On Slide 16, change "8802-1" to "Process" in
the title -On Slide 16, change "modified process for 8802-1" to
"modified process"
-On Slide 17, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in both
places in the Proposed resolution column -On Slide 18, change "8802-1"
to "Process" in the title and in the Proposed resolution column -On
Slide 19, change "8802-1" to "Process" in the title -On Slide 20, change
"8802-1" to "Process" in the title and in the Proposed resolution column
(7) [Technical] Slide 21 says "8802-1 should not contain any technical
material". Likewise, Slide 12 says 8802-1 should "Not contain any
technical material." It's true that 8802-1 has both technical and
procedural content, and that's not good. But this proposal would remove
the wrong part. It really doesn't make any sense for us to recommend
that ISO/IEC maintain a "Technical Report"
and insist that it be without technical content.
Remedy:
-On Slide 12, delete "Not contain any technical material"
-Delete Slide 21.
Roger
On Sep 21, 2006, at 02:34 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> Dear EC,
>
> The tentative result on version 10 is shown below. If you have not
> explicitly cast a vote on version 10, please cast your vote as soon as
> possible, as we need to submit the recommendation to SC6 shortly.
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
> Vote categories: APP DIS ABS DNV
> --------------------------------------------------
> VC Mat Sherman APPv10
> VC Pat Thaler APPv10
> ES Buzz Rigsbee APPv10
> RS Bob O'Hara DNVv10
> TR John Hawkins APPv10
> 01 Tony Jeffree APPv10
> 03 Bob Grow APPv10
> 11 Stuart Kerry APPv10
> 15 Bob Heile DNVv10
> 16 Roger Marks DNVv10
> 17 Mike Takefman APPv10
> 18 Mike Lynch APPv10
> 19 Steve Shellhammer APPv10
> 21 Vivek Gupta APPv10
> 22 Carl Stevenson APPv10
> ME Geoff Thompson does not have a vote, endorses v10
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 15 TOTALS 12 0 0 03
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:23 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email ballot (closes no later than
> 25SEP2006)+++ Motion to approve the attached EC SC6 recommendation
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 E
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.