Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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

Jon

It is OK with me, and as you say, it is more generic.

James Gilb

On 03/20/2013 07:37 AM, Jon Rosdahl wrote:

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.