Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs

[Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org>]

I support David's position on this.
Thr requirement was put in for good reason.
That reasoning and the rationale behind it has increased over the years, 
not diminished.
The requirement needs to stay.

Geoff

On 1310//12 11:15 AM, Law, David wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I've always read the requirement in subclause 11.2 'IEEE 802 LMSC Approval' of the IEEE 802 Operations manual requiring '.. a work plan for the development of managed object definitions, either as part of the PAR or as a part of an additional PAR' as being met by stating what the plan is, and if the development of managed object definitions will be part of the PAR or another PAR.
>
> For example in the recent IEEE P802.3bp draft PAR and 5 Criteria email<http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg15385.html>  it is stated under item [3] that 'The project will include a protocol independent specification of managed objects with SNMP management capability to be provided in the future by an amendment to IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011 Ethernet MIBs.'.
>
> If such a statement does meet the requirement, as I believe it does, it seems to me that this is not a particularly onerous requirement, and in my opinion has the merit that the plan for the development of managed objects for a project has to be considered.
>
> Based on this I don't support having this requirement removed - but I am in support of a discussion on a possible update on how this requirement may be satisfied - and its relationship to the 5C Compatibility statement that 'Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of standards shall include a definition of managed objects that are compatible with systems management standards'.
>
> Best regards,
>    David
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
> Sent: 13 October 2012 05:04
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs
>
> Pat
>
> I think we should remove it.
>
> If we don't, then probably the best place to track it is to add it to
> the 5C, which I have porposed that we update in November.
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 10/12/2012 04:51 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
>    
> > In working on text for the RFC on how IEEE and IETF work together, I
> > noticed that the second paragraph of 11.2 of the Operations Manual
> > (the subclause on 802 approval of PARs) says that PARs are to be
> > accompanied by "a work plan for the development of managed object
> > definitions, either as part of the PAR or as part of an additional
> > PAR".
> >
> > I haven't seen any PARs accompanied by such a work plan (beyond some
> > PARs having the words "managed objects" in their scope). Looking at
> > recently approved PARs, there are PARs that don't include even that.
> >
> > Should we remove this requirement since we aren't enforcing it?
> >
> > Regards, Pat
> >
> > ---------- 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.