Re: [802SEC] Results of EC ballot on Liaison letter to SC6
I find the changes positive.
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Kraemer
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:46 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Results of EC ballot on Liaison letter to SC6
Geoff,
Thanks for the suggestions - and I am personally comfortable with them.
I'd like to see some further feedback from the EC Note: we have a JTC1 committee meeting next week in Jacksonville we can use for a discussion forum.
Also note that the baseline document we voted on has been sent to SC6 and posted by Jooran - hence we have successfully met the Guangzhou meeting posting deadline.
If we get some positive feedback from the EC on these revisions what we can do is either post to Sc6 a revision or carry in the revisions to the Guangzhou meeting.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:51 PM
To: Bruce Kraemer
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; andrew.myles@cisco.com; j.haasz@ieee.org; Glenn Parsons
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Results of EC ballot on Liaison letter to SC6
Folks-
I know it is time to ship this thing but (as an engineer and as always) I have a couple of minor twiddles that
(a) if we put in will improve the accuracy of the text but
(b) we can live without.
They are:
#1
Where we say: "It also avoids any difficulties related to the MAC address registry agreements between IEEE, ISO and IEC, which rely on a number of the documents identified in 6N14713."
It should say: "It also avoids any difficulties related to the registry agreements between IEEE, ISO and IEC, which rely on a number of the documents identified in 6N14713."
RATIONALE: We wish to protect all of the registries (e.g. EtherType) related to 802, not just the MAC address registry.
#2
Where we say: "We note that the ISO/IEC "stabilized" status is beneficial to stakeholders because the IEEE has no equivalent status that does not require ongoing maintenance."
It should say: "We note that the ISO/IEC "stabilized" status is beneficial to stakeholders because the IEEE has no equivalent status."
RATIONALE: IEEE doesn't have any equivalent status (by either name or
practice) as of the new year which is "equivalent."
I suggest we leave it up to Paul and Bruce to decide what to do regarding this input.
Happy New Year to all and Best Regards,
Geoff
On 61//12 2:22 PM, Bruce Kraemer wrote:
> Dear EC,
> On December 27th we closed an EC vote to approve a liaison document to SC6.
> The results are shown below, and yes, the motion passed - thank you.
>
> [cid:image003.jpg@01CCCC97.C54A9870]
>
> As a result of the comments there were a couple of word changes. I also reformatted the material as an EC document with Paul as the author.
> The final version can be found here:
>
> https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/12/ec-12-0001-00-00EC-liaison-to-sc
> 6-re-8802-standards.doc
>
> Paul will be sending this to SC6 shortly (our submission deadline is January 10).
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> ----------
> 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.