Dear IEEE 802 LMSC members,
Best regards,
David
-----
[1] Change the first paragraph to read:
The IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group understands that ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 invited our review of 'Proposing LAN/Ethernet MCS Gap Analysis' (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 N 107). In a brief, non-comprehensive review, we observed several errors and issues with
the document.
[2] Change the last sentence of the second paragraph as follows:
'... there are references to an IEEE 802.3 Ethernet PHYs that don’t does not exist such
as; namely, 50GBASE-T.'
[3] Change the second sentence of the third paragraph as follows:
'... not inclined to participate further in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 ... '.
-----Original Message-----
From: Law, David
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 8:17 PM
To: IEEE 802 LMSC <stds-802-sec@ieee.org> <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ 10-day ECM – Early Close +++ IEEE 802.3 liaison letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4
Hi Roger,
Thank you again for your further feedback. I believe that there was a general concern that if we didn't provide some feedback, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 might go forward thinking the document was correct. With that said, to try to address your concern with
the way we are providing the feedback, I would like to ask if changing the first paragraph to read as follows would start to address your concerns.
Thanks, and best regards,
David
-----
The IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group undertook a brief, non-comprehensive review of 'Proposing LAN/Ethernet MCS Gap Analysis' (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 N 107) and observed several errors and issues with the document.
-----
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10-day ECM – Early Close +++ IEEE 802.3 liaison letter to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4
Roger-
RE: I think we could make the point with simply "We appreciate your request for a review for identification of errors are not inclined to participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4."
The quoted text is not a complete sentence.
Even though we choose not to participate, perhaps we could do a little bit better on our written response.
One possible form:
We appreciate your request for a review for identification of errors, however we are not inclined to participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4.
or
There is already an established mechanism under the PSDO for feeding back suspected errors in ISO/IEC 8802-3 to the formulating group and mechanism. This should be sufficient for minor items. Any proposals for changes of greater scope should be presented
through the long established procedures for new projects within 802.3. These procedures are directed towards members of 802.3 and depend on sufficient participation within 802.3 to take place. We see no reason to support an activity to propose or develop 802.3
standards that operates at arm's length from 802.3 and its proven consensus process.
Regards,
Geoff
David,
Thanks for your response and additional background.
I have no problem with the tone or content of '... not inclined to participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4 …’ But, by announcing that 802.3 “has had the opportunity to review” the document and has found numerous errors, then we ARE participating; and since
we are not revealing all the errors we claim to have found, we’re being particularly antagonistic about it. I think we could make the point with simply "We appreciate your request for a review for identification of errors are not inclined to participate in
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6/AG 4."
If anyone in SC6 wonders whether 802 takes their input seriously, I think that this response will offer an exhibit. I think we could have done better, and that, for future SC6 communications, we’ll need to.
Regards,
Roger
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
-----
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 11:00 PM
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
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.
________________________________________