Jon -
Thank you for your comments on the P802 and P802.1AX PAR actions.
*P802 extension request:*
I have asked James to prepare a plan for the completion of this project,
and this will be presented in the closing EC meeting. My expectation is
that the project will require at most 2 further recirculations, and that
completion within the requested extension period is achievable.
However, in my opinion, the biggest risk to the completion of this project
is the propensity for the balloters to indulge in the standard makers'
favourite passtime of turd polishing. Any standard is, to a greater or
lesser extent, a turd, and no amount of buffing it up will change that
fact; Standard 802 is no exception, and we have now been buffing it up for
several years. I have made appeals in at least two closing EC meetings for
the EC/WG voters to respond to the ballot with restraint so that we can get
the project finished; however, we still receive large numbers of comments,
many of which should have been made and dealt with way back in the WG
ballot phase of the project.
It is high time we all shut our eyes and voted "Yes" on this project, warts
and all, and saved our efforts for a future revision when there will be
more serious work to be done on the document. For that reason, I have
deliberately only asked for a 1 year extension; if it takes longer than
that, frankly I believe that we would be better off abandoning this
revision project and starting again with a new PAR, so this is the very
last extension that I plan to request for the current revision project.
As for the 802.1 leadership "enforcing" a project plan, that is just an
unrealistic expectation as anyone involved in a process like this should
very well understand; any time you come up with a way that a project plan
can be enforced with a volunteer workforce, do let me know - in nearly 30
years of standards development activities, I haven't discovered that secret
so far.
*P802.1AX PAR modification request:*
Adding "“5.2” to 8.1 prior to the explanation would be fine by me. However,
given that this PAR modification request has now been pre-submitted, I
would suggest that the practical way to get the change incorporated would
be for you (or another NesCom member) to make the comment on the submitted
PAR on the NesCom website, so that the change is documented in the NesCom
database; I can then respond to the comment on the system and the NesCom
admin can make the actual change to the text on the master copy of the
extension request.
Regards,
Tony
On 12 November 2013 18:11, Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org> wrote:
Hello all,
I have posted the feedback on the PARs underconsideration:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/13/11-13-1381-00-0000-802-11-review-of-pars-for-nov-plenary.pptx
We have included feedback for 802, for 802.1AX, for 802.3br, 802.22 and
OmniRAN.
Regards,
Jon
802.11 First Vice Chair
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl Standards Architect
hm:801-756-1496 CSR Technologies Inc.
cell:801-376-6435 10871 North 5750 West
office: 801-492-4023 Highland, UT 84003
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!
---------- 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.