Transcript https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/11/ec-11-0001-00-00EC-ieee-802-feb-interim-telecon-mtg-presentation-slides.ppt

February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
IEEE Interim Telecon
Feb 1, 2011
1-3pm ET
Jon Rosdahl (CSR): [email protected]
Meeting slides
Slide 1
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
Tentative agenda
• 1) December BOG meeting update, Paul, 15 minutes
2) New Model for Maintenance of IEEE Standards, Geoff, 30
minutes (see
attached material)
3) 802 Workshop Saturday afternoon before the March Plenary-finalize agenda
and participants, Paul, 30 minutes
4) Update on March 2012 venue options, Buzz, 15 minutes
• 5) Any other business? 15 minutes
– Update on Singapore meeting -- Buzz
– JTC1 AdHoc Minutes -- David
– SLA Agreement -- Bruce
Meeting slides
Slide 2
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
Amended/Approved Agenda
• 1) December BOG meeting update, Paul, 15 minutes
2) New Model for Maintenance of IEEE Standards, Geoff, 30
minutes ( see sent material)
3) 802 Workshop Saturday afternoon before the March Plenary-finalize agenda and participants, Paul, 30 minutes
4) Update on March 2012 venue options, Buzz, 15 minutes
• 5) Any other business? 15 minutes
– Update on Singapore meeting -- Buzz
– JTC1 AdHoc Minutes -- David
– SLA Agreement – Bruce
Meeting slides
Slide 3
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
Paul’s BOG Review
Meeting slides
Slide 4
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
•
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
SA Rules Change
Folks(The Stds Board was just going to vote this in at the December meeting without consultation with Sponsors. We got it put off til March with
a Sponsor Comment period through February)
IEEE Staff and the leader of an Ad Hoc (Jim Hughes of Microsoft) are recommending changes to the SA operating
rules to:
- Eliminate the REAFFIRMATION process altogether
- Change the REVISION cycle from 3 or 5 years (with a possible 1 year extension)
to an ABSOLUTE 10 year renewal requirement
In addition, they propose to eliminate any categorization of older non-active standards
(e.g. Stabilized, Withdrawn, etc) or the recording of any rationale for its non-active status such as:
- Contains erroneous or obsolete information (i.e. reaffirmation failure)
- Legal reasons (withdrawn as the result of a lawsuit)
- Superseded (by a newer IEEE Standard or maybe by an ISO, IEC or JTC-1 standard)
The only categories would be "Active" or "Inactive".
Other changes/impacts:
- Sponsor Ballot Pool members could be "disqualified" from future ballots for lack of response (no criteria
provided, Ref SASB OM 5.4.1)
- Trial Use standards which default to full standard status (2 yrs) would have full status for 10 years.
- Unlimited amendments for 3 years or 3 max for 3+ years (one 2 year extension possible)
- ANSI approved standards require revision on a 5 year cycle, not ten.
Meeting slides
Slide 5
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
References
• Attached SA OM, 6.3.1
Attached SA By Laws, 2.2, 4.2.3.1, 5.1, 5.2.5, 5.3 (the
big One),
6.2 (patent policy change)
Attached SASB OM, 1.2, 4.1.2, 5.4.1, 5.7, 6.3.3,
9 Minor 5.6.2.1
Meeting slides
Slide 6
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
*GEOFF's OPINION ON THIS
•
*I think this is a bad idea. While reducing the complexity of our
maintenance overhead is attractive, 10 years is an eternity in our
industry. Further, the real reason the SA is proposing this seems to be
because they couldn't cope with generating (and mechanizing) a
reasonable mechanism for APPROVAL BALLOTING.
There has been problems and confusion for years with the Reaffirmation
process. It only got worse when the SA tried to do Reaffirmation within
the normal balloting process for the initial approval of standards (i.e.
includes the ability to have comments that stand in the way of an
approve ballot) within MyBallot. There were several attempts to fix
this (I came up with what I thought was a quite reasonable alternative)
but none of these were adopted.
Meeting slides
Slide 7
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
Opinion continued:
•
During the effort to design a voting process for Reaffirmation, it
became obvious that such a process would be generally useful for
APPROVAL BALLOTING (i.e. a document that must simply be voted up
or down
without change). In particular, this is a useful process for standards
from other SDOs that have to be adopted without change.
The current proposal by the SA is (in my opinion) just an effort to
avoid dealing with these issues.
I truly look forward to discussing your views on this matter on the
Tuesday call.
Best regards,
Geoff
Meeting slides
Slide 8
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
Flowcharts
Meeting slides
Slide 9
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)
February 2011
doc.: IEEE 802 EC-11/0001r0
Workshop Agenda example from
GlobCom.
Meeting slides
Slide 10
Jon Rosdahl (CSR)