Re: [802SEC] +++ EC Consent Agenda items - 802.1 +++
Hi James, John D
Following closer review of the resolutions of the comments on 802.1AS-Rev, combined with the timescale for progression to RevCom, I have decided to withdraw this motion completely. This will give us the opportunity to revisit the comment resolutions without pushing out the end date.
I am also withdrawing the motion to forward P802.1Qcx to SA ballot for a similar reason.
Cheers,
-- John
-----Original Message-----
From: James P. K. Gilb <Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com>
Sent: 18 July 2019 10:44
To: John Messenger <jmessenger@advaoptical.com>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ EC Consent Agenda items - 802.1 +++
External email: [Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com]
......................................................................
John
Thanks for the updates on P802.1X-Rev/D1.4 and 802.1Qcx/D1.2.
My question regarding the CRG is I am wondering what the process in
802.1 is for approving comment resolutions to create a new draft and start the next ballot. Every WG is different in how they handle this, some, such as 802.15, are more formal. Who decides when the draft is ready for the next recirculation?
With regards to the comments, the LMSC is tasked with evaluating if the process was followed. My understanding of those comment resolutions is that the process was not followed, i.e., that a valid reason for the rejection was not given.
Saying that the comment does not identify an error introduces a requirement that is not in our process, i.e., that valid comments have to identify an error in the specification.
Approve, Reject and Revise are a summary of the disposition, not a reason. The reason is required for a Reject (Approve isn't allowed any text, Revise needs to describe the changes to be made).
IMHO, the WG did not follow the process in rejecting these comments.
You have expressed other potential reasons why they might have rejected those comments, but that reasoning needs to be in the comment resolution.
I will ask for this to be taken off the consent agenda and I will oppose the motion with the current comment resolution reasons for rejecting those two comments.
James Gilb
On 7/17/19 2:44 PM, John Messenger wrote:
> James,
>
> 1. Yes, P802.1X-Rev/D1.4 was the last version to be balloted in the WG (a WG recirculation ballot). No comments were received on the ballot, and no changes made as a result.
>
> 2. 802.1Qcx/D1.2 was the last version to be balloted in the WG. It received comments which were resolved by making changes to the draft. At the end of the comment resolution, no Disapprove votes remained. The recirculation is to allow the ballot pool to verify that their comments have been satisfactorily resolved and the resolutions correctly applied.
>
> 3. 802.1 TGs do not have membership distinct from the membership of
> the WG. Comment resolution will be performed on TSN TG calls and at
> meetings of the TSN TG, but there is no separate CRG distinct from the
> WG membership. We do not require that level of formality. Any WG
> member, and any 802.1 participant, is free to join the calls and
> meetings at which comment resolution is performed. We avoid holding
> votes in TGs, and resolution of comments is a consensus process. We
> do not express it in these terms, but you might choose to look at this
> as a CRG comprising a committee of the whole. (This answer applies
> both to 802.1Qcx and 802.1AS-Rev.)
>
> 4. Regarding the wording of the disposition of the 802.1AS-Rev REJECTed comments you refer to, I agree that the disposition could have been better worded, by explicitly stating that the group chose not to accept the suggested change, considering it unnecessary (as well as what they did say). Although you state that the committee did not take exception to the suggested remedy, in fact it did, and this is expressed through the word REJECT in the disposition. While there's no requirement for a comment to point out an error, it is also true that the commenter did not point one out, and that the committee doesn't have to accept suggestions which improve the draft. What they were saying is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". However the committee does need to properly respond to comments, and I will inform the members of the need to properly respond and clearly state their reasons, especially during the later stages of the balloting process and to be particularly careful at S!
A ballot. Please give your opinion as to whether there is a significant risk of this causing problems at RevCom, because if so, I would consider withdrawing, or changing, this motion.
>
> Thanks for giving me a chance to answer your questions, rather than Jessy Rouyer having to answer them during the closing LMSC meeting.
> Cheers,
> -- John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James P. K. Gilb <Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com>
> Sent: 17 July 2019 16:26
> To: John Messenger <jmessenger@advaoptical.com>;
> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ EC Consent Agenda items - 802.1 +++
>
> External email: [Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com]
>
> ......................................................................
> John
>
> A few questions:
> P802.1X-Rev-D1.4 to Standards Association Ballot - Is D1.4, the revision we are forwarding the last version balloted?
>
> P802.1Qcx
> - Why is there a recirculation ballot?
> - Ballot resolution will be by the TSN TG, does the 802.1 WG intend to empower a comment resolution group (CRG) to make decisions to resolve comments from the recirculation?
>
> P802.1AS-Rev
> - Same question regarding CRG.
> - Two of the unsatisfied comments were rejected with: "The commenter does not point outn any errors in the draft. The suggested changes run a significant risk of introducing errors in test that has been reviewed by the committee."
>
> There is no requirement that a comment point out an error in the draft.
> A comment can be any requested change to the draft, including changes to improve it. The commenter states "wouldn't this be better", clearly indicating that the comment is to improve the draft and implementation.
>
> There is a detailed suggested remedy, for which the committee has not taken exception, so I would be led to believe that it is adequate to make a change.
>
> It appears that it is the committee that "did not point out any errors"
> in the proposed remedy, but rather they state, without additional justification, that there is a "significant risk of introducing errors"
>
> Thanks for providing the documents early for review.
>
> James Gilb
> -
> On 7/17/19 4:02 AM, John Messenger wrote:
>> Please find at:
>> https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/19/ec-19-0121-00-00EC-802-1-consen
>> t
>> -agenda-items-lmsc-closing.pptx
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Messenger
>> Director, Global Standards
>> ADVA Optical Networking Ltd
>> ADVAntage Houe, Tribune Way, York YO30 4TN, UK
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.