Re: [802SEC] Proposed compatibility requirement for CSD/5C

[Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org>]

Ben,
  I think that the last paragraph may make the exceptions more generic than 
just the "EUI-64 addresses " case, and that would be a beneficial addition. 
The rewrite of the other paragraphs does not seem to be a good change to me. 
The idea was not to have 802.1 become a gatekeeper or hurdle, but that each 
WG would work with 802.1 to know what is or is not compatible, and address 
this appropriately.

James:
   Would Ben's 3rd paragraph be a good replacement for the last paragraph?

Bob,
  Would that be agreeable?
Thanks
Jon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Benjamin A. Rolfe" <ben@blindcreek.com>
To: "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org>
Cc: "Jon Rosdahl" <jrosdahl@ieee.org>; <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed compatibility requirement for CSD/5C


> Not completely sure since I really don't understand what (b) means, but 
> I'm willing to take a shot:
>
> All IEEE 802 standards should be in conformance with IEEE Std 802, IEEE 
> 802.1D, and IEEE 802.1Q. If any variances in conformance emerge, they 
> shall be disclosed and shall be provided to IEEE
> 802.1 Working Group for review prior to submitting a PAR to the Sponsor.
>
> IEEE 802.1 Working Group shall review the PAR and determine if the 
> proposed standard comply with IEEE Std 802, IEEE Std 802.1D and IEEE Std 
> 802.1 and shall provide a response to the working group originating the 
> PAR.
>
> If it is determined that the proposed standard does not comply with IEEE 
> Std 802, IEEE Std 802.1D and IEEE Std 802.1Q, the Working Group 
> originating the PAR will supply the 802.1 Working Group and to the Sponsor 
> a response addressing the deviation.
>
> In the case of an amendment or revision to an existing standard for which 
> it has previously determined that compliance with the above 802.1 
> standards is not possible or is otherwise has been accepted, the review 
> and response above is not required and it shall be so noted when 
> submitting the PAR to the sponsor.
>
>
> ====
> FWIW!
>
> B
>
>
>
>
> > Jon
> >
> > I would love to have better wording that achieves the same result.
> >
> > James Gilb
> >
> > On 03/19/2013 10:27 AM, Jon Rosdahl wrote:
> > > I can live with that rationale for leaving it in...but that paragraph
> > > does read a bit rough though.
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Heile" <bheile@ieee.org>
> > > To: "Jon Rosdahl" <jrosdahl@ieee.org>; <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:49 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed compatibility requirement for CSD/5C
> > >
> > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > > I will just offer that if we remove this sentence, then 15.4, for
> > > > every PAR it does, is subjected to an endless (or boilerplate)
> > > > response as to why it can not comply. This at least puts the reason in
> > > > one place, one time, and does not make work which offers no value add.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > At 09:27 AM 3/19/2013 -0600, Jon Rosdahl wrote:
> > > > > I think that this wording is ok up to the point of the "exception"
> > > > > paragraph.
> > > > > I think that that paragraph is not necessary.
> > > > > FWIW,
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "James P. K. Gilb" <gilb@ieee.org>
> > > > > To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:03 AM
> > > > > Subject: [802SEC] Proposed compatibility requirement for CSD/5C
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > All
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on feedback, I have some updated wording to consider for the
> > > > > > compatibility requirement for the CSD/5C.  This would replace the
> > > > > > existing text.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > All IEEE 802 standards should be in conformance with IEEE Std 802,
> > > > > > IEEE 802.1D, and IEEE 802.1Q. If any variances in conformance
> > > > > > emerge, they shall be thoroughly disclosed and reviewed with IEEE
> > > > > > 802.1 Working Group prior to submitting a PAR to the Sponsor.
> > > > > >   a) Will the proposed standard comply with IEEE Std 802, IEEE Std
> > > > > > 802.1D and IEEE Std 802.1Q?
> > > > > >   b) If the answer to a) is no, supply the response from the IEEE
> > > > > > 802.1 Working Group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An exception to this procedure is made for variances that occur due
> > > > > > to the use of EUI-64 addresses in proposed standards that require
> > > > > > EUI-64 addresses to maintain backward compatibility with existing
> > > > > > IEEE 802 standards.
> > > > > > ---------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments/suggestions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James Gilb
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bob Heile, Ph.D
> > > > Chairman Emeritus & Chief Technologist, ZigBee Alliance
> > > > Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
> > > > Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
> > > > 11 Robert Toner Blvd
> > > > Suite 5-301
> > > > North Attleboro, MA  02763   USA
> > > > Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
> > > > email:   bheile@ieee.org
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.