Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day ECM – Early Close +++ IEEE 802.3 liaison letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4

["Law, David" <dlaw@HPE.COM>]

Hi Roger,
 
Thank you for your comments. George and I did discuss the approach that should be used for this letter with both the IEEE 802 LMSC Chair and IEEE 802 IEEE 802 ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 6 Standing Committee Chair during initial drafting. The letter was then reviewed at the IEEE 802 ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 6 Standing Committee, before I sought IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group approval, and then submitted it to this IEEE 802 LMSC email ballot.
 
In addition to the factual errors in document ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4/N 107, which as you note is one of the items the ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 convenor asked us for, there is also a concern that individual's participation through our Category A liaison are being misinterpreted as support for the activity. This is of particular concern to me since ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 is small, with only two National Bodies participating. 

The small group contributing to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 seem to be misunderstanding the observation and input from groups such as IEEE 802 as participation, bordering on endorsement, hence our tone must be direct and perhaps a little harder than it might be in other cases. For example, the document states in subclause 6.5 'On the last point, from the positive response of IEEE 802 group to the invitation to establish liaison with AG 4, it is clear that IEEE 802.3 group is interested in SC 6's work on MCS Innovation.'. We wish to correct that misunderstanding.
 
As a result, I believe the approach agreed upon was to point out the errors, and to be very clear that we do not support this activity, that we won't be providing any further assistance, and if ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 participants are interested in advancing MCS work they should participate in IEEE 802.3.
 
I appreciate that this email probably won't address your concerns since they are related to the tone of the letter, but I wanted to give you an idea of my rationale for the tone used. As you can guess, I'm comfortable with the tone, for example, we say that we're '... not inclined to participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 ...'.
 
Best regards,
  David

-----

From: Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 11:00 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org; Law, David <dlaw@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day ECM – Early Close +++ IEEE 802.3 liaison letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4

David,

Please change my vote to Disapprove.

After discovering and reviewing the document that is the subject of the letter, I don’t support the tone of the response. That document says:

14.3 Liaison to IEEE 802 Group
This document needs further improvement from other experts especially from IEEE 802.3 group. Since IEEE 802 Group has representatives in AG 4, they are aware of this proposal once it is posted to the AG 4 document repository. There is no need to prepare a separate liaison letter to IEEE 802 Group. It is recommended that when this proposal is arranged for review at AG 4 meeting, a reminder is sent to IEEE 802 Group representative to invite their attention and participation. Comments are invited to address but not limited to the following issues:
•Are there any factual errors in this document?
•What information should be included but missing from the document?
•Who can provide answers to the questions raised but not resolved in this document?
•Should this document be jointly developed?
•Should the final report be published as a Technical Report for public access?

It appears that these questions were asked in good faith. I believe that a proper response should acknowledge the questions and provide considered answers, or state that we have no opinion on some. On the issue of errors, I’d prefer a more constructive response such as “We appreciate your request for a review for identification of errors. Here are some issues we identified:…” Also, we shouldn’t say "there are references to IEEE 802.3 Ethernet PHYs that don’t exist such as 50GBASE-T.” This is saying that there are a plurality of incorrect PHYs listed but we are giving only one example. Why are we withholding the names of the others?

Cheers, 

Roger
On Sep 14, 2023, 6:41 PM -0600, Law, David <mailto:dlaw@hpe.com>, wrote:

Dear LMSC members,

The 'Process: how does a WG send a liaison to SC6?' on slide 4 of 'IEEE 802 Process for Interactions with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 & 7' <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-1287-02-0jtc-ieee-802-process-for-interactions-with-iso-iec-jtc-1-sc-6-7.pptx> says 'The WG and then the IEEE 802 EC must approve liaisons to SC6'.

Based on this, and further to my email on Tuesday 12 September 2023 <https://ieee802.org/secmail/msg28685.html>, the IEEE 802.3 Working Group approved the draft liaison letter from IEEE 802.3 to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 available at <https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/23/ec-23-0165-01-00EC-ieee-802-3-liaison-letter-to-iso-iec-jtc-1-sc-6-ag-4.pdf> at its interim meeting today, Thursday 14 September 2023.

As a result, I would like to proceed to an IEEE 802 LMSC electronic ballot. Paul has delegated the conduct of the IEEE 802 EC electronic ballot on the following motion to me. To ensure I can send this letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 as soon as possible before their 13 October 2023 meeting, I'm announcing the possibility of an 'early close' to this ballot (see below).

Best regards,
David


Motion
======

Approve <https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/23/ec-23-0165-01-00EC-ieee-802-3-liaison-letter-to-iso-iec-jtc-1-sc-6-ag-4.pdf> as a communication from IEEE 802.3 to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4, granting the IEEE 802.3 Working Group chair (or his delegate) editorial license.

This approval is under LMSC OM "Procedure for coordination with other standards bodies".

Move: David Law
Second: George Zimmerman

Start of ballot: Thursday 15 September 2023
Close of ballot: Friday 29 September 2023 AoE (23:59 UTC-12)

IEEE 802.3 Working Group vote: Y:66 N:0 A:0

Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that to ensure I can send this letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 as soon as possible before their 13 October 2023 meeting, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter. Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring approval by a majority vote' item (g), 'Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in order by the Standards Committee Chair)' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.

----------
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.