Re: [802SEC] PAR for Revision of IEEE Std 802.10-1998
Hello Ken:
My name is Angela Ortiz and I am the IEEE-SA Staff Liaison.
Please let me know, ASAP, if you are planning to do a reaffirmation as per
Howard's suggestion below.
"B) In the meantime, undertake a reaffirmation of 802.10-1998 so
that it doesn't expire out from under you. As I have previously
stated, I believe that a reaffirmation ballot can be initiated
before the 802.10 WG is reanimated."
Thanks,
Angela Ortiz
Program Manager - Technical Program Development
__________________________
IEEE Standards, 445 Hoes Lane,
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA
Telephone: 1732-562-3809 >< Fax: 1732-562-1571
E-m: a.ortiz@ieee.org >< standards.ieee.org
FOSTERING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
Howard Frazier
<millardo@dominetsystems.co To: Ken Alonge <kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
m> cc: IEEE802 <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>, Russ Housley
Sent by: <housley@vigilsec.com>
owner-stds-802-sec@majordom Subject: Re: [802SEC] PAR for Revision of IEEE Std 802.10-1998
o.ieee.org
05/31/2003 04:52 PM
Ken,
I have a couple of observations and questions about this PAR.
First, have you initiated a reaffirmation ballot on 802.10-1998,
or are you planning on completing the revision before the
standard is withdrawn?
Second, the projected date for the initiation of the sponsor
ballot seems wildly optimistic. I very much doubt that you
can get a PAR approved at the September SASB meeting and
then launch a sponsor ballot by November. This might be
perceived as a "rush job", lacking in due diligence.
I strongly suggest that you enter more realistic dates for
the initial ballot and the submittal to RevCom.
Third, I am concerned about the scope and purpose statements.
Have these been vetted by a study group? Are we sure that
there is a sufficient level of interest in a project with this
scope and purpose?
Fourth, I am concerned about the responses to the 5 Criteria.
In the response to "Broad Market Potential", you imply that
there is sufficient interest in this project, yet in "Compatibility"
you state that: "There are no implementations of 802.10-1998, therefore
backwards compatibility is not an issue." Please forgive me,
but it seems contradictory to imply that there is broad market
potential for a revision to a 5 year old standard that no one
has implemented.
It is not my intention to impede this work. I think that it could
be very significant, but I am concerned about the PAR as it has
been submitted. I suggest the following course of action:
A) Perform a "Call for Interest" to determine whether there is
sufficient interest in reanimating 802.10 with a Study Group to
develop a PAR for a revision, or a new project within 802.10.
B) In the meantime, undertake a reaffirmation of 802.10-1998 so
that it doesn't expire out from under you. As I have previously
stated, I believe that a reaffirmation ballot can be initiated
before the 802.10 WG is reanimated.
C) Develop a PAR and 5 Criteria within the Study Group that
reflects a consensus of the interested parties concerning the
title, scope, and purpose of the PAR, and the contents of the
5 Criteria, along with a suitable timeline.
Let me repeat that it is not my intention to impede this work.
If there is a sufficient level of interest within the LMSC,
then the work should be performed. However, I cannot help but
feel that this PAR and 5 Criteria have not undergone sufficient
consideration by the interested parties. This feeling may
be entirely unfounded. It may be the case that the interested
parties have been brought together to formulate the PAR and
5 Criteria. If this is so, it would be very helpful to describe
the manner in which they were brought together, and provide some
record of the deliberations.
Howard Frazier
Ken Alonge wrote:
> All-
>
> As promised in earlier e-mails, I'm forwarding a PAR and the 5 Criteria
for
> your consideration at the July Plenary to revise the SILS Standard and to
> unhibernate 802.10 to perform the work. Please provide any
> comments/questions as soon as you can.
>
> Thanks - Ken Alonge
>