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

[802SEC] staff request to again renumber 802 Conformance standards


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,


At 15:38 -0500 03/12/19, 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
>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
>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.
> >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
> >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
>>My apologies for the confusion.
>>Best regards,
> >Jodi Haasz
> >
>>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:
>>Again, it's fine to have "20xx" once. But what is the point of having it
>>Paul: what do you think?
> >
> >>>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
> >>
> >>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