Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs
James,
I don't fully agree with your proposal. OM 11.2 currently says that the PAR requires "responses describing how the proposed PAR meets the five criteria and a work plan for the development of managed object definitions." In other words, it's asking for two separate things. Therefore, if we put the work plan into the Five Criteria, then I'd want to delete "and a work plan for the development of managed object definitions" from 11.2.
Regarding your proposed addition to 11.5.2, I would prefer a simpler version, such as:
"The Five Criteria statement shall describe the plan for developing a definition of managed objects as part of the project, or part of a different project, or explain why such a definition is not needed."
Another point regarding 11.5.2 is that there seems to be a typo in the second sentence. I believe that the colon should be replaced by the word "with".
Roger
On 2012/10/24, at 02:07 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
> David
>
> If there is support for it, I will add it.
>
> Informal straw poll: Any objections?
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 10/24/2012 08:42 AM, Law, David wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>> You are of course correct - the infamous change to the Compatibility section in the March 2012 plenary indeed :-)
>>
>> In respect to your proposed addition to Compatibility I am in support of this - are you going to add this as part of you broader set of changes you are proposing for the 5 Criteria?
>>
>> 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: 16 October 2012 22:36
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rules issue on Procedure for PARs
>>
>> All
>>
>> While we haven't had a formal straw poll to show consensus, I would
>> suggest that there is sufficient interest to propose language for the 5C.
>>
>> David, the text you quoted ("Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of
>> standards shall include a definition of managed objects that are
>> compatible with systems management standards.") was deleted in the
>> infamous change to the Compatibility section in the March 2012 plenary.
>>
>> May I suggest the following to be added to Compatibility:
>>
>> Each standard in the IEEE 802 family of standards should include a
>> definition of managed objects that are compatible with systems
>> management standards. Accordingly, the Five Criteria shall answer the
>> following questions:
>> a) Describe the plan for developing a definition of managed objects
>> for this PAR (e.g., it is part of this PAR, part of another PAR or is
>> not necessary). If the definition of managed objects will not be
>> developed as part of this work, indicate why it will not be developed.
>> b) Indicate the systems management standard for which the managed
>> objects will be compatible.
>>
>> James Gilb
>>
>> On 10/15/2012 04:49 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>> I also support what David (and Geoff) said. I believe it is important that
>>> we develop standards that take into consideration how the technology will
>>> be managed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 October 2012 16:16, Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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<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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> 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.