| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Comments on the draft letter. I don’t think the heading IEEE 802 LMSC Informal Communication is valid. We don’t have any such thing.
In any case, for IETF, this is being sent to the new-work reflector which probably will strip any formatting. For that group, it should be a plain text email.
It needs some improvement because it doesn’t indicate which PARs were forwarded. The PARs under consideration page doesn’t indicate which PARs were approved. Also, that page has the PARs as submitted 30 days
in advance and sometimes changes are made to PARs during the week in response to comments. If we want an after meeting mailing with the PARs as approved, one will either need to use links to the edited PAR documents in our WG document areas or need to add
a page for PARs approved at a meeting. What IETF asked for specifically is to know while PARs are under consideration and the draft doesn’t cover that.
What I sent to the new-work reflector to cover that was: Subject: IEEE new work under consideration in November The following Project Authorization Requests (PARs) will be considered at the November 2012 IEEE 802 Pleanry. • 802.1ACby - amendment for Support by Ethernet over Media Oriented Systems Transport (MOST)
• 802.1Qbz - amendment for Enhancements to Bridging of 802.11
• 802.1Qca - amendment for Path Control and Reservation
• 802.16r - amendment for Small Cell Backhaul (SCB) Applications
• 802.11ak - amendment for Global Link • 802.11aq - amendment for Pre-association Discovery (PAD
• 802.15.4q - amendment for Ultra Low Power
• 802.22.1a - amendment for Advanced Beaconing • 802.3bj - PAR modification request & Updated 5C
• 802.3bp - amendment for 1 Gb/s Operation over Fewer than Three Twisted Pair Copper Cable
• 802.21 - revision PAR for IEEE Std 802.21-2008
• 802.21.1 - standard for Media Independent Services The PARs can be found at
http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml along with the supporting 5 criteria (i.e. the explanations of how they fit the IEEE 802 criteria for initiating new work).
Any comments on a proposed PAR should be sent to the Working Group chair identified on the PAR to be received by 5:00 PM November 13, 2012 (2300 UTC November 13, 2012). The important pieces of the email being:
·
the list of titles to give readers of the new-work reflector an inkling of whether they have an interest in following the link to look at the PARs
·
link for more information
·
the deadline (including translating it to UTC for the reader’s convenience) for comments on the PARs
·
recipient for comments (I probably should have also said Paul should be copied on comments) For ISO, it may need a bit of the more formal formatting and perhaps they just want to know what we’ve approved. Regards, Pat From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:jdambrosia@force10labs.com]
All, I don’t think the issue is with us communicating publically available information as individuals, but for me, it is an issue when I sign it with my Recording Secretary title in the signature. I believe from
the conversations we have had that we wish to have it appear that this communication comes from the LMSC. Therefore, as recording secretary, I would want to see that I have the LMSC’s approval to make the informal communication with my title included.
I also agree with James that in order to make this something that is a regularly occurring item it is listed in the Chair’s Guidelines under responsibilities for the Recording Secretary. James, please add to
agenda, If you have not already. I am including a draft liaison communication template for all’s review and comment. Regards, John From:
owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Kraemer Pat, 1.
The additional group requesting this information is ISO SC6. 2.
I would support the motion proposed by John as a vehicle for making info available at the end of each plenary. In addition….. 3.
We have a standardized system for collecting and displaying PAR information on a PAR page so I presume, with a little bit of work, we can replicate that for Study Groups. 4.
Conveyances to ISO will need to be formatted i.e the new information from each plenary dropped into a cover letter. I expect each recipient will require a similar procedure. I believe each of these
cover letters, and email distribution lists, can be prepared once and then reused by John after each plenary. Bruce From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler Does anyone object to the motion John suggests? Pat From: John D'Ambrosia
[mailto:jdambrosia@force10labs.com]
Pat, I assume you are going to want the recording secretary, i.e. me, to send this. As I would be sending this as the IEEE 802 LMSC Recording Secretary, I would prefer a motion supporting that communication. However, I do not think it needs to be a liaison, and believe that the following would
be sufficient Move that the IEEE 802 LMSC Recording Secretary send an informal communication to external groups, as designated by the IEEE 802 EC Chair, that communicates for each IEEE 802 Plenary Session PARs and Study Groups
that were under consideration. John From:
owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler We discussed during the EC teleconference whether posting a pointer to PARs on the IETF new-work reflector is a liaison statement which requires a motion or not. Some felt strongly that it does and others equally strongly that it doesn’t.
We have a similar request from another standards body (was it ITU?). The form of email would be something like: The following Project Authorization Requests are under consideration for the <month> <year> IEEE 802 Plenary: A list of <designation>-<title> The PARs can be found at
http://ieee802.org/PARs.shtml. Any comments on a proposed PAR should be sent to the Working Group chair identified in the PAR to be received by <date of Tuesday of the plenary> 1700 <time zone of meeting>. At this point, I can see two courses of action – A motion to give blanket approval to a regular liaison mailing of the information above to IETF (and possibly include the other body) Or A motion to acknowledge that the above communication is not a formal liaison and doesn’t require approval. I’d like input on which would be preferred. 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.
|