Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
I agree. If we agree to do an interpretation for this document of ours,
then we should go through all the steps and documentation that a WG
would when interpreting one of their documents. And I do necessarily
recommend this. :-)
On 10/30/2007 12:45 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> Colleagues
>
> If we are going to handle interpretations "the same way our WGs handle
> interpretations"
> Then we have to do the rest of process.
> (I am not necessarily recommending this.)
> i.e. publish those interpretations (I would suggest the back of the P&P)
> See more text below
>
> Geoff
> At 10:53 AM 10/30/2007 , greenspana@BELLSOUTH.NET wrote:
> >All:
> >
> >Voting on an interpretation works for me as long as it is coupled
> with clarifying the inerpretation that we come up with >in the P&P by
> changing the wording.
> >
> >Arnie
> >-------------- Original message from J Lemon <jlemon@IEEE.ORG>:
> --------------
> >
> >> Unless Roberts really says such (I don't care enough to research
> whether
> >> it does), I believe that we should handle interpretations the same way
> >> our WGs handle interpretations: vote on a proposed interpretation.
> >>
>
> However, it should be noted that a possible outcome of an
> interpretation (by the IEEE Interpretation Process mandated for WGs)
> can be that the governing text is flawed and ambiguous.
>
> Please refer to the governing text below, copied from:
> http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/
>
> Occasionally, questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of
> standards as they relate to specific applications. Such requests for
> interpretations should ask for clarifications of the exact nature of
> the contents of the standard.
>
> Questions relating to such interpretations are reviewed and evaluated
> by a balance of members representing the specific committee interests.
> This officially formed interpretations subgroup creates and circulates
> a draft interpretation among its members. It transmits a final
> interpretation to the party initiating the request only after
> consensus has been achieved. he interpretation is also given to the
> standards-developing committee to consider addressing it in a
> supplement or the next revision to the standard.
>
> Interpretations are issued to explain and clarify the intent of the
> standard and are not intended to constitute an alteration to the
> original standard or to supply consulting information. The
> interpretations subgroup cannot make new rules to fit situations not
> yet covered in the standard, even if the investigations of the
> subgroup lead it to conclude that the requirement is incomplete or in
> error. Changes to the standard are made only through revisions or
> supplements to the standard.
>
> It is recognized that requests are frequently received that are
> partially or totally requests for information rather than requests for
> an interpretation. It is inappropriate to issue an official
> interpretation to answer such requests. The interpretations subgroup
> may, however, find from its research that the literal printing of the
> standards text is not identical to that approved by the standards
> developers and may issue an editorial correction as a part of its
> interpretation.
>
> ----------
> 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.