Re: [802SEC] Kibis in Kauai
My biggest concern with P1541 is that, unlike many IEEE standards,
this standard is likely to affect a very broad range of other standards,
from multiple disciplines. Based on what I have observed regarding
the enforcement practices concerning IEEE standard units, every new
and revised standard is going to be rigorously and thoroughly examined
for compliance with 1541.
There is a case in recent history in which a draft was submitted to RevCom
for approval, and SCC14 insisted that SI prefixes be replaced with
the kibi/mebi/gibi equivalents, and suggested that this could be done
conducting a recirculation of the draft. RevCom weighed in by saying
that such a change would require a recirculation, and that since the draft
had been approved by the ballot group in its current form, it should be
approved by the Standards Board as submitted. This recommendation
was upheld by the Standards Board, and then further upheld upon an
appeal from SCC14. (the final resolution was to put the values in the
document in expanded form, which was deemed to be an editorial change).
From this case, I worry that with the approval of P1541, sponsors and
ballot groups will have no recourse, and will have to live with
kibis/mebis/gibis, etc, and may not even know that their drafts have
been changed until they see them in published form. Okay, standards
are standards, and once adopted by the IEEE, other standards should
conform with their requirements, to the extent the requirements apply.
But wouldn't you like to have some say in the matter?
1541 will apply to all information technology standards, yet there was
not one single semiconductor manufacturer, not one single computer or
communication system manufacturer, not one single mass storage device
manufacturer, and not one single commercial software developer represented
in the ballot group for 1541. The draft received a unanimous first round
approval vote from 15 members of the ballot group of 16 (one did not
vote), all of whom identified their interest category as Government,
General Interest, or User. There was not one single Producer in the ballot
group. In my four years on RevCom, having looked at hundreds of submittals,
I can say that it is extremely rare (I can't recall another instance) to
none of the ballot pool members identify themselves as Producers.
To me, it boils down to these questions: Are semiconductor manufacturers,
computer and communication systems manufacturers, mass storage
manufacturers, commercial software developers, and other IT professionals
materially effected by P1541? Should their interests have been represented
in the ballot group? Should they have had the same opportunity to join
the ballot group as they would have had for any other IEEE-SA standards
A secondary concern is that I think there will be a
strong reaction from standards developers and sponsors if 1541
is approved, and the level of enforcement that I expect is applied.
I think that this will look bad for the IEEE-SA, and result in a
royal mess. I think that there is even the potential for ridicule.
I believe that the IEEE-SA's procedures include a
mechanism for dealing with such a reaction, if it occurs, provided
that P1541 is approved by the Standards Board as a Trial-Use,
2 year standard.
If approved as a Trial-Use standard, P1541 would be subject
to comment during the trial period, and I believe that comments
will be submitted. These comments will then have to be resolved
by a Working Group, and a new ballot conducted. If materially
interested parties avail themselves of the opportunity to join
the ballot group (which the Standards Board must ensure
is open and well publicized), then consensus will eventually be achieved.
On the other hand, if I am wrong, and no one cares about kibis, then
no comments will be submitted, and 1541 will be upgraded to a
Full Use standard without any changes. To me, this seems to
be a fair and reasonable course of action that is fully within the
authority of the Standards Board, and is completely appropriate
for the material contained in P1541.
> Roger -
> I agree the history puts a slightly different slant on this; however,
> none of this explains why there has been no visible mechanism for
> joining the balloting pool, nor any encouragement from SCC14 for
> interested parties to do so at the point when they decided to form a
> balloting group.
> So, interesting history lesson, but for me, it doesn't get them off
> the hook.
> At 09:22 05/11/2002 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>> As background to my comments, I should say that, though I am not in
>> any way involved in this standards project, I am in favor of it.
>> People may misunderstand the history of this project when they read
>> that the PAR was approved in May 2002. That was a revised PAR. The
>> original PAR was approved on 8 December 1998. (I just looked it up.)
>> The draft has been around for a very long time too. Perhaps that's
>> why the Sponsor Ballot proceeded so quickly.
>> This topic has not been a secret. For example, Jim Carlo forwarded
>> the SEC a coordinating note on this issue almost three years ago:
>> Attached to that note was P1541 Draft 2 (dated 1999-12-24) including
>> virtually the same language as your Slide 2.
>> That coordinating note invited comment. I wrote to Bruce Barrow, and
>> he replied.
>> Even earlier, and independently, I wrote to the SEC on this issue in
>> December 1999:
>> with a followup by Vic:
>> My note cited a few other sources, including an August 1999 IEEE
>> Spectrum article quoting Bruce Barrow:
>> as saying "it is unlikely the standard would be adopted before
>> mid-2000." (Good prognostication!)
>> At 1:13 AM -0800 02/11/05, Howard Frazier wrote:
>>> Dear IEEE 802 LMSC SEC Members,
>>> I have asked Paul for a brief amount of time to
>>> make a presentation at the opening plenary
>>> meeting in Kauai on a subject that will come
>>> before the IEEE-SA Standards Board in
>>> December. Attached please find a set of
>>> slides that will explain the issue.
>>> The topic is important, even though it is
>>> sometimes hard to discuss it with a straight face.
>>> I won't have enough time to present all of
>>> the slides at the plenary, but I plan to cover at
>>> least the 2nd and 3rd slides, and possibly
>>> the 4th. The remainder have been included
>>> to help explain the issue, and hopefully
>>> stimulate debate.
>>> The Standards Board needs to hear from
>>> people who have a stake in the subject.
>>> For reasons outlined in the slide deck, I
>>> believe that materially interested parties are
>>> completely unaware of actions that have been
>>> taken to date, and are not aware of the certain
>>> impact of IEEE draft standard P1541.
>>> I hope that you will see fit to share this material
>>> with your working groups, and to elicit their
>>> feedback. I believe that if the LMSC takes a
>>> position on this subject, it can have an effect
>>> on the Standards Board's decision.
>>> Here's the key to the whole thing: Look at
>>> the "shall" statements on slide 2, and ask yourself
>>> if all new and revised IEEE standards should have
>>> to conform to them, because if P1541 becomes
>>> an IEEE standard, that's what will happen.
>>> Howard Frazier
>>> Attachment converted: TiDrive:kibi.pdf (PDF /CARO) (00130AB2)