[802SEC] Re: staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
Forwarded for a nonsubscriber.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: GAntonello@wi-lan.com, ken@ensemblecom.com, p.nikolich@ieee.org,
stds-802-sec@ieee.org, y.hoSang@ieee.org
Dear Roger:
In my previous e-mail, I forwarded the IEEE-SA PAR Numbering Policy,
approved December 2003.
If you look at the numbering scheme that you are proposing, the user
would
not know if Conformance04-2003 was conformance to IEEE Std 802.16-2001
or
to a revision of 802.16 (e.g. 802.16-2004). The policy was reviewed by
myself, Yvette and Paul Nikolich and approved by NesCom.
I would suggest that you discuss this issue with Paul as he is a member
of
NesCom and see what his thoughts are.
Best regards,
Jodi Haasz
Program Manager
International Stds Programs and Governance
Standards Activities
Phone +1 732 562 6367
FAX +1 732 875 0695
Email: j.haasz@ieee.org
"Roger B. Marks"
<r.b.marks@ieee.o To:
j.haasz@ieee.org
rg> cc:
p.nikolich@ieee.org, y.hoSang@ieee.org, stds-802-sec@ieee.org,
ken@ensemblecom.com,
GAntonello@wi-lan.com
12/24/2003 03:25 Subject: staff request
to again renumber 802 Conformance standards
AM
Jodi,
I appreciate your attempt to resolve this problem, but I simply cannot
accept the staff request on this issue.
The problem (as documented in the email trail below) is that staff wants
to
renumber our proposed P802.16/Conformance04 PAR, and, to boot, renumber
the
previous documents in the series, backing out of an agreement reached
just
six months ago to renumber projects in accordance with staff requests. I
think I should recap the history:
(1) NesCom and the SASB approved the first three PARs in the series as
P1802.16.1, P1802.16.2, and P1802.16.3. AFTER the first was through
Sponsor
Ballot and the Sponsor Ballot Group for the second was in place, staff
decided that it was unsatisfied with the numbering of all three PARs.
(2) We worked out a new numbering systems of the form "IEEE
802.N/Conformance01-2003". The 802 LMSC Executive Committee ran a ballot
to
approve this form. NesCom and the Standards Board renumbered all three
PARs
accordingly in June 2003. We duly notified the affected parties of the
renumbered projects.
(3) Subsequently, IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01-2003 has been published,
IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance02-2003 has approved by RevCom, and
P802.16/Conformance03 has passed Sponsor Ballot unanimously (albeit with
comments to resolve).
(4) In November, we submitted the next PAR in the series:
P802.16/Conformance04-2003. You responded that staff now wants to change
the PAR numbering format to "P802.16-20xx/Conformance04-20xx". I said
that
this doesn't follow the approved numbering system. You said that staff
wants to move to this new convention and therefore wants to RENUMBER THE
PRIOR PUBLISHED STANDARD to meet it. You didn't mention the 02 standard
and
03 project, but I presume that staff will proposed to renumber those
again
too.
(5) You have asked whether I approve of this change. The answer is
simple:
No.
Jodi, I believe that a staff request to once again renumber projects,
even
after a previous change was agreed to by all parties (including the 802
EC
in a ballot) and served as the basis of approved standards, is
unacceptable.
Furthermore, I believe that the proposed new scheme is faulty, for the
following reasons:
(a) "IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003" is an absurdly long and
complicated document number.
(b) Using a year twice in the same document number is confusing.
(c) Most fundamentally, using the publication year of the base document
is
inaccurate and misleading. For instance, the standard that has been
proposed for renaming is NOT strictly based on IEEE Std 802.16-2001. It
is
based on that standard as amended by IEEE Std 802.16c-2002 and IEEE Std
802.16a-2003. You simply can't convey this fact in the document number,
unless you want something like "IEEE Std 802.16-2001, 802.16c-2002,
802.16c-2003/Conformance01-2003". And I don't find that acceptable
either.
It is my wish that staff accepts the prior agreed-to numbering scheme,
accepts the number proposed on 802's P802.16/Conformance04 submission,
and
retracts the plan to "redesignate" IEEE Std 802.16-2001/Conformance01 as
IEEE Std 802.16/Conformance01.
I'm sorry we've run into a conflict at this time of year. I know that
many
of us, including myself, are on vacation right now and don't relish any
complications. However, I am sure I would eventually regret going along
with the proposal simply for the sake of harmony.
I do wish you the a happy holiday season and look forward to a happy
resolution of the problem.
Best regards,
Roger
At 15:38 -0500 03/12/19, j.haasz@ieee.org wrote:
>Dear Roger:
>
>Further to my voice mail earlier:
>
>I have spoken to Yvette HoSang about the newly-published conformance
>standard. She confirmed that this will be redesignated at IEEE Std
>802.16-2001/Conformance01-2003. The number does need to track back to
the
>date of the source standard.
>
>As you indicated below, Conformance04 will relate to the current
project
>revising IEEE Std 802.16-2001; therefore, the project for Conformance04
>should be numbered as P802.16-20xx/Conformance04-20xx. The reason for
the
>two sets of "xx"s is the first sent in the standard number denotes the
>FUTURE year of publication of the revision project for 802.16; the
second
>set of "xx"s represents the year of publication for the conformance
>document.
>
>If you could please let me know if we can now move forward with this
PAR
>submission, I would really appreciate it.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jodi Haasz
>Program Manager
>International Stds Programs and Governance
>Standards Activities
>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>Email: j.haasz@ieee.org
>
>
>Jodi,
>
>Our newly-published conformance standard is IEEE
802.16/Conformance01-2003.
>The title doesn't track back to the date of the source standard.
>
>Conformance04 will probably relate to IEEE 802.16-2004, since we are
>currently doing a revision.
>
>Roger
>
> >Dear Roger:
>>
>>I think I was confused. According to the NesCom numbering policy:
>>
>>Projects for conformance may have unique numbers unrelated to the
standard
>>for which conformance is being defined; they may have a parallel
number
to
>>the standard for which conformance is being defined, e.g., P1656 could
be
>>the conformance project to IEEE Std 656-20xx; or they may maintain the
> >numeric designation of the standard for which a conformance project
is
> >being defined, e.g., the first conformance project to IEEE Std
1905.2-20xx
> >would be P1905.2-20xx/Conformance01-20xx. The latter method is
>particularly
> >recommended for multipart conformance projects to a single standard.
In
>>special instances, a predetermined designation may be needed, e.g.,
during
>>international coordination, and shall be submitted to NesCom for
approval.
>>
>>Therefore, your document should be numbered as
>>P802.16-2001/Conformance01-20xx (as it is conforming to IEEE Std
>>802.16-2001). Is this your intention? If so, then this is the
correct
>>number.
>>
>>My apologies for the confusion.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
> >Jodi Haasz
> >
>>
>>Jodi,
>>
>>Sorry, but I am still confused that you have "20xx" twice in the PAR
>>number. I don't think that was the agreed-to scheme. Our two previous
PARs
>>in the series are listed in the database as:
>>
>>P802.16/Conformance03-200x
>>P802.16/Conformance02
>>
>>Again, it's fine to have "20xx" once. But what is the point of having
it
>>twice?
>>
>>Paul: what do you think?
>>
>>Roger
> >
>>
> >>>In regards to having 20xx twice in the number, the reason is that
since
> >>>this is a conformance document to the revision you are doing, there
is
no
>>>>approval year yet. Paul Nikolich, Yvette HoSang and I have revised
the
>>>>IEEE-SA PAR Numbering Policy and the number scheme was agreed to by
all.
>>>>
>>>>Please let me know if the attached is satisfactory.
>>>>
>>>>(See attached file: 802-16-20xx_Conformance04-20xx.pdf)
>>>>
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>Jodi Haasz
>>>>Program Manager
>>>>International Stds Programs and Governance
>>>>Standards Activities
>>>>Phone +1 732 562 6367
>>>>FAX +1 732 875 0695
>>>>Email: j.haasz@ieee.org
>>>
>>
> >>
>>>
> >>Do we really need "20xx" twice in the PAR number? I am happy with
zero
>>>times, and I would be OK with one. But two seems like too many.
>>>
>>>The first three in this series had the form
P802.16/Conformance0n-200x.
>>>
>>>Can you send me an update?
>>>
> >>Roger
>>>