G'day all
I also note that while there might be some ambiguity in the table in
the letter in relation to ISO/IEC 8802-5's amendments (as noted by
Geoff), the text in the body of the liaison is very clear. It states,
" /Therefore, IEEE 802 requests that ISO/IEC 8802-2 and ISO/IEC
8802-5, and their amendments, remain in "stablized" state in
ISO/IEC/". Hopefully, with this text and Bruce articulating the intent
in person at the SC6 meeting, we will send the intended message.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Bruce Kraemer
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 8:35 AM
To: Pat Thaler; thompson@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Liaison letter to SC6 (Yet another "refinement")
Pat,
The original letter and the update based upon Geoff's suggestions has
gone out.
Its posted as an EC document.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/12/ec-12-0001-01-00EC-liaison-to-sc6-re-8802-standards.doc
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:06 PM
To: thompson@ieee.org; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Liaison letter to SC6 (Yet another "refinement")
Hasn't the letter gone out already?
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:41 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Liaison letter to SC6 (Yet another "refinement")
All-
I hate to keep stirring this pot...
But I just came across, shall we say, a lack of completeness that I
think it appropriate to mention.
I'll let Bruce and crew decide whether the liaison letter needs to be
amended or whether this issue just needs to be kept in mind during
discussions and ongoing documentation.
The issue:
One item that was on the chart of ISO/IEC version to "be handled" was:
ISO/IEC 8802-5
There are really TWO standards that should be covered there.
ISO/IEC 8802-5:1998 (Base standard)
and
ISO/IEC 8802-5:1998/Amd 1:1998 (Dedicated token ring operation and
fibre optic media)
We want them both to be "Stabilized" forever.
Best regards,
Geoff
On 91//12 11:45 AM, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
> Geoff,
> Thanks for the suggestions - and I am personally comfortable with them.
> I'd like to see some further feedback from the EC Note: we have a
JTC1 committee meeting next week in Jacksonville we can use for a
discussion forum.
>
> Also note that the baseline document we voted on has been sent to
SC6 and posted by Jooran - hence we have successfully met the
Guangzhou meeting posting deadline.
> If we get some positive feedback from the EC on these revisions what
we can do is either post to Sc6 a revision or carry in the revisions
to the Guangzhou meeting.
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:51 PM
> To: Bruce Kraemer
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; andrew.myles@cisco.com;
> j.haasz@ieee.org; Glenn Parsons
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Results of EC ballot on Liaison letter to SC6
>
> Folks-
>
> I know it is time to ship this thing but (as an engineer and as
> always) I have a couple of minor twiddles that
> (a) if we put in will improve the accuracy of the text but
> (b) we can live without.
>
> They are:
> #1
> Where we say: "It also avoids any difficulties related to the MAC
address registry agreements between IEEE, ISO and IEC, which rely on a
number of the documents identified in 6N14713."
>
> It should say: "It also avoids any difficulties related to the
registry agreements between IEEE, ISO and IEC, which rely on a number
of the documents identified in 6N14713."
>
> RATIONALE: We wish to protect all of the registries (e.g. EtherType)
related to 802, not just the MAC address registry.
>
> #2
> Where we say: "We note that the ISO/IEC "stabilized" status is
beneficial to stakeholders because the IEEE has no equivalent status
that does not require ongoing maintenance."
>
> It should say: "We note that the ISO/IEC "stabilized" status is
beneficial to stakeholders because the IEEE has no equivalent status."
>
> RATIONALE: IEEE doesn't have any equivalent status (by either name or
> practice) as of the new year which is "equivalent."
>
> I suggest we leave it up to Paul and Bruce to decide what to do
regarding this input.
>
> Happy New Year to all and Best Regards,
>
> Geoff
>
>
> On 61//12 2:22 PM, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
>
>> Dear EC,
>> On December 27th we closed an EC vote to approve a liaison document
to SC6.
>> The results are shown below, and yes, the motion passed - thank you.
>>
>> [cid:image003.jpg@01CCCC97.C54A9870]
>>
>> As a result of the comments there were a couple of word changes. I
also reformatted the material as an EC document with Paul as the author.
>> The final version can be found here:
>>
>> https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/12/ec-12-0001-00-00EC-liaison-to-s
>> c
>> 6-re-8802-standards.doc
>>
>> Paul will be sending this to SC6 shortly (our submission deadline
is January 10).
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.