Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Straw Poll+++ Editorial
Sounds pretty straightforward to me too.
Regards,
Tony
At 00:00 23/02/2006, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>Mat,
>
>I don't see the problem here. If the entire rest of the P&P will show
>WG/TAG wherever the rules are the same and either WG or TAG where the
>rules are different, the problematic statement can be removed, entirely.
>
>
> -Bob
>
>-----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) applys 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 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.