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

Re: [802SEC] RE: 802.0 ReCirculation


I have a specific request with respect to this recirculation ballot


There are a number of nasty issues that are buried in here. I do not believe that this is being handled correctly. I talked to both Jim and Tony at significant length today but I think we all need a little more time to cook on this one. Let's take some time and figure out what the right thing to do is AND do it together.

The following are facts regarding this issue:

1) 802/D29 was approved unconditionally at the June meeting of the IEEE-SA Standards Board

(See: )

There is minor and perhaps confusing mention of this (?) issue in the SB draft minutes of the June meeting:
The (draft) minutes of the 14 June IEEE-SA Standards Board meeting can be found at
Name: standards
Password: 2001board
2.2.3 Std 802 - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture
There was a motion from RevCom to approve the revision of this standard. The editorial staff shall
include the note from the RAC Chair in the published document. Upon vote, the motion was approved
with 20 approve and 1 abstain.
If staff and the working group have discussions resulting in a substantive change, there will be a
AI-01Jun-4 - Staff to ensure that the RAC concerns are accommodated.
(The RAC concerns were accommodated without substantive change by a note - GOT, RAC Chair)

2) One a Standard has been approved and there is a desire to change the approved Standard a new PAR is required.

3) This recirculation is being conducted without an open PAR.

4) There is no procedure for what happens next. There is no cause to submit the package to REVCOM, after all there is no project. Besides, there would be no way to put together a complete REVCOM package (inclusion of the PAR is required)

5) What happens if everyone votes:
        YES) (or defaults w/ no response) Presumably this is what staff wants. They get to do what they want in the way of substantive changes to our approved Standard before publication.

        NO) Absolutely unclear. My position is that we would get to go forward to publication as approved in June. Obviously there is someone out there trying to overide this course of action.

        ABSTAIN) This one is interesting. Greater than 30% abstention INVALIDATES a ballot. What would that mean? Who knows. I think this activity is already invalid.

Tony wants to get the 802 Standard out as well as getting out from under this particular controversy. I support that.

IEEE-SA Staff want to put new policies in place that are considerably more restrictive than the past. They have chosen 802 as their first "example"

The IEEE-SA Standards Board is not driving these new policies and (in my opinion) are largely ignorant of the ramifications.

My opinion:
        1) We ought to get the publication of approved IEEE Std 802 decoupled from these new issues.
        2) We should insist that staff operate by the procedures unless directed otherwise by clear direction from the board.
        3) We should try to see that the board gets brought up to speed on these new issues
        4) IEEE-SA should act in a manner in this area that reflects the consensus of its customer base.
        5) The IEEE-SA should not be positioning itself as the monopoly supplier of conformance/technical services.

We have until roughly July 18 to cast our ballots. That is the week after the Standards Board meeting.


        IEEE-SA SB Bylaws:
        IEEE-SA SB Ops Manual: