Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Matt, Why not make section 7.2 "LMSC Working Groups (WGs) and Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)" and use the WG/TAG symbol to define all the rules common to both, and then have two separate sub-sections "7.2.1 WG-Only" and "7.2.2 TAG-Only" where you call out the things unique to each. Then the rules for the use of distinct symbols apply uniformly.
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing IT - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
Cell: (425) 417-1022
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:14 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Folks,
The feedback so far has been limited, but based on that feedback it sound like the desired path is to use WG/TAG everywhere (except where we currently mean only WG or only TAG).
The problem with this is the line in the TAG rules that say all rules for WG apply to TAG (except as noted otherwise). The problem is that this line essentially nullifies the intent of using WG only elsewhere in the document. Minimally you would need to notate it WG (but not TAG). This is particularly an issue in the section titled 'LMSC Working Groups (WGs)'. This is a big subclause. And almost all of it (except as already excepted) applies to TAGs. The term WG/TAG would not make much sense particularly in that subclause. I don't think we want to replicate all of this subclause in the TAG subclause. It will greatly complicate the document and tracking future updates.
For now a compromise could be that anywhere outside of the subclause we use WG/TAG, and state clariy the rule in the TAG subclause that all of subclause 7.2 on WG applies to TAGs except as excepted here.
Does this makes sense?
I will put out the teleconference notice shortly, and will check on any other issues for the editorial change tomorrow. My default position is of course that if anyone objects to any change on this particular update (since it is supposed to be editorial) the text stays as it currently is.
Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:47 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Note that the date of the teleconference should read 2/23. This Thursday at Noon EST.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
_____
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:17 AM
To: 'STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org'
Subject: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Hi folks,
I want to take a straw poll, but first a reminder:
There will be a teleconference this Thursday (2/19/06) at 12 PM EST to discuss the 'Editorial' P&P revision. I will be on the road again, but will attempt to have a webex up and running. I'll provide details later this week.
Strawpoll:
Should we replace existing occurrences of the term 'WG/TAG' with 'WG'?
Background:
The biggest issue raised on the editorial ballot was the question of using WG as opposed to WG/TAG in the P&P. Sometimes we use WG, and sometimes we use 'WG/TAG'. A couple of folks objected to my suggestion of uniformly using WG rather than sometimes using WG/TAG. The general objection was that ambiguities might creep in.
My problem is that there are already a very large number of uses of 'Working Group' to refer to a WG/TAG in the existing P&P. To 'clean' all that up would be a very large task and I think will greatly clutter the P&P. Some of the subclauses I feel currently suffer from these ambiguities are: 7.1.4.1 (letter e and g) 8.1.1 9.1, 10.1, 14.1.2. Interesting while most of 7.2 uses only WG subcluase 7.2.4.4 use WG/TAG and sometimes just WG. This is not an exhaustive list, just some of the place that might currently be considered ambiguous.
So, I wish to first draw attention to the following line for Subclause 7.3 'LMSC Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)'
"The TAGs operate under the same rules as the Working Groups, with the following exceptions:"
The text then goes on to identify a bunch of exceptions. It is possible that through time additional exceptions might have been identified elsewhere in the P&P (I'd prefer that we collect them all in 7.3 if others exist). But fundamentally, this subclause says that any rule that applies to a WG (not explicitly called out as an exception in this clause of the P&P) also applies for a TAG. As such, I'd prefer to define things in the P&P as explicitly for a WG and implicitly for a TAG. If there are exceptions, they should really be called out in 7.3. I want to see if I have enough support to pass a ballot on this before I invest the effort in it.
Please review some of the subclauses I've identified for ambiguous use of the terms and comment on my straw poll. If you prefer an alternate resolution please provide it.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.