Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++ Endorsement of a document numberingscheme for Conformance Standards
I vote Approve.
Since the background material below is quite lengthy, here is a brief summary:
802.16 has three open PARs to develop separate conformance standards to support IEEE Std 802.16. These are numbered 1802.16.1, 1802.16.2, and 1802.16.3, in accordance with an advertised 802 convention on how to number conformance standards. However, with 1802.16.1 sitting on the RevCom agenda, the IEEE editorial staff indicated concern with the numbering scheme. The issue is possible confusion due to the fact that 802 has already been using the second "." to number its standards. A user might not know whether "1802.16.3" is the third document in the series of "802.16" conformance documents, or whether it is the single conformance document for 802.16.3.
Yvette proposed an alternative that would be workable as a new convention, suitable for use by, for example, 802.15, with its 802.15.N standards. Paul suggested a slight modification. The proposal is OK with me and Bob Heile. Paul wanted to see this voted on by the SEC. The reason I've asked for an electronic ballot is so that the issue can be resolved before the June NesCom/RevCom meetings, at which action will be required to change the number of "1802.16.1" to ""802.16/Conformance01" before approval. At the same time, NesCom could renumber PARs 1802.16.2 and 1802.16.3.
Roger
At 11:58 AM -0400 5/22/03, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear SEC,
>
>This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
>motion to endorse a document numbering scheme for Conformance Standards.
>Moved by Roger Marks, Seconded by Bob Heile
>
>The email ballot opens on Thursday May 22, 2003 12NOON EDT and closes Friday
>June 6, 2003 12NOON EDT. (The ballot is timed to close before the IEEE
>Standards Board meetings the week of June 9 to enable IEEE 802's
>recommendation to be considered by NesCom.)
>
>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly to me
>(p.nikolich@ieee.org).
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>
> 'Motion: To endorse a document numbering system of the form "IEEE
>802.N/Conformance01-2003" for standards specifying conformance to IEEE
> Std 802.N (where "01" is the number of the first such standard and is to
>be incremented for additional ones), subject to refinement based on
> discussions between the LMSC Chair, IEEE-SA staff, and IEEE-SA
>committees.'
>MOVED: Roger Marks
>SECOND: Bob Heile
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------
>Background material:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Roger Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>To: <y.hoSang@ieee.org>
>Cc: "Roger Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>; "Geoff Thompson"
><gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>; <millardo@dominetsystems.com>;
><paul.nikolich@att.net>; <j.haasz@ieee.org>; <m.nielsen@ieee.org>;
><a.ortiz@ieee.org>; <bheile@ieee.org>
>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Proposed NesCom convention for numbering of corrigenda
>
>
> > Yvette:
> >
> > At Paul's suggestion, I am currently planning to make a motion for an
> > SEC email ballot to endorse a document numbering scheme for conformance
> > standards. My second will be Bob Heile, whom I consulted since 802.15
> > also has standards of the form 802.X.Y. Bob and I were happy with
> > Paul's suggestion to modify your proposal by adding "Conf" to
> > "Conformance".
> >
> > Earlier today, I asked Paul to review this motion:
> >
> > 'Motion: To endorse a document numbering system of the form "IEEE
> > 802.N/Conformance01-2003" for standards specifying conformance to IEEE
> > Std 802.N (where "01" is the number of the first such standard and is
> > to be incremented for additional ones), subject to refinement based on
> > discussions between the LMSC Chair, IEEE-SA staff, and IEEE-SA
> > committees.'
> >
> > I hope we can get the SEC to approve this ballot before the June
> > Standard Board meetings. This should provide support to go forward with
> > approving 1802.16.1 as "802.16/Conformance01-2003". The numbers of the
> > 1802.16.2 and 1802.16.3 could be changed there too.
> >
> > I would not be comfortable with a change to the title of the standard,
> > since this title was used on the balloted draft.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 03:02 PM, y.hoSang@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Geoff,
> > >
> > > I haven't received other input, so I'd like to address a concern I have
> > > with the suggestions you listed.
> > >
> > > We can change the title to show "Conformance Test for IEEE Std
> > > 802.16---Part 1: Title" without much problems. The designation,
> > > however,
> > > might prove problematic. As you know, there has been an ongoing debate
> > > about the use of "IEEE Std" for the different types of documents
> > > denoted as
> > > standards. If we want to expedite the approval of IEEE P1802.16.1, I
> > > don't
> > > think we'll get any resolution for the use of "Conf Tst" instead of
> > > "IEEE
> > > Std." We can try, but I doubt that a final decision and PAR change
> > > would be
> > > possible in the timeframe we have.
> > >
> > > The debate about what the designation should be will be decided by
> > > NesCom
> > > in its discussion (so plan to be there). What I hoped was that the SEC
> > > had
> > > no major issues with the suggested change to the NesCom conventions,
> > > and
> > > that a decision could be made about which of the suggested formats
> > > could be
> > > used as the norm for conformance documents to IEEE 802 standards. That
> > > way,
> > > we can get NesCom to approve the designation change for IEEE
> > > P1802.16.1,
> > > and then get the approval from RevCom on the draft. So far, the only
> > > concern I received was the use of "Conformance" rather than "Conf." You
> > > highlighted the difficulty with the database (we currently have issues
> > > with
> > > the length of our designations and titles). My hope was to keep it
> > > within
> > > the current length to make the change as painless as possible. I'll
> > > check
> > > into whether we can accommodate the longer designation and get back to
> > > everyone. If the SEC still wants to try to make the changes you
> > > suggested,
> > > then I'd like to ask that the group choose a backup plan from the
> > > suggestions that were made just in case we encounter concerns. That
> > > way, we
> > > can still work on getting IEEE P1802.16.1 approved.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yvette Ho Sang
> > > Manager, Standards Publishing Programs
> > > IEEE Standards Activities
> > > +1 732 562 3814
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Geoff Thompson
> > > <gthompso@nortelnet To: y.hoSang@ieee.org
> > > works.com> cc:
> > > paul.nikolich@att.net, "Geoff Thompson"
> > >
> > > <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>, millardo@dominetsystems.com,
> > > 05/13/2003 02:44 PM r.b.marks@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re:
> > > Proposed NesCom convention for numbering of corrigenda
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All-
> > >
> > > I would like to see something excruciatingly simple.
> > >
> > > I offer the following format examples:
> > >
> > > Conformance Test for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > > Conformance Test, Complete, for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > > Conformance Test, Part 1, for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > > Conformance Test, Part 1 of n, for IEEE Std 802.3 - 2002
> > >
> > > Such a simple scheme would presumably work well for actual humans
> > > looking
> > > in a catalog but would presumably not well for list management and
> > > inventory control by field oriented computer databases. For those
> > > systems,
> > > I would recommend/propose that there be a separate document type
> > > designation that said "CONF Tst" instead of "IEEE Std" (note, same
> > > number
> > > of characters)
> > >
> > > In draft stage there would also need to be separation by designation.
> > > Whereas:
> > > P802.3a/D1.01 is a designator for a draft standard (P is for
> > > "Project")
> > > I would propose:
> > > T802.3a/D1.01 is a designator for a draft conformance
> > > test(T is
> > > for "Test")
> > >
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > >
> > > At 05:56 PM 5/5/2003 -0400, y.hoSang@ieee.org wrote:
> > >> Paul,
> > >>
> > >> Roger and I have discussed a concern I have with the numbering of IEEE
> > >> P1802.16.2. This is the second conformance document for IEEE Std
> > >> 802.16,
> > >> but infers by the numbering that it is the conformance document for
> > >> IEEE
> > >> Std 802.16.2. My hope is to establish a numbering convention that will
> > >> eliminate this type of confusion. The attachment shows text that staff
> > >> would like to propose as a NesCom convention (see paragraph 10). In
> > >> short,
> > >> it allows three choices
> > >>
> > >> a) Use of a completely different designation (IEEE Std 1234 could be
> > >> the
> > >> conformance document for IEEE Std 5678)
> > >>
> > >> b) Use of a special designation associated with a base document (IEEE
> > >> Std
> > >> 1802.3 could be the conformance document for IEEE Std 802.3)
> > >>
> > >> c) Special multi-volume designation if the working group develops more
> > > than
> > >> one conformance document for a specific standard (IEEE Std 802.16/Conf
> > >> 1-20xx could be the conformance document for IEEE Std 802.16; or IEEE
> > >> Std
> > >> 1802.16/Conf 1-20xx could be the conformance document for IEEE Std
> > >> 802.16)
> > >>
> > >> If I could get input from the IEEE 802 SEC prior to June, we could
> > >> avoid
> > >> any delay in the approval of IEEE P1802.16.1. My suggestion would be
> > >> to
> > >> have a consistent numbering for the IEEE 802 group. I'm not sure what
> > >> the
> > >> history is for placing a "1" before the designation to indicate that
> > >> the
> > >> document is a conformance standard. If the group would like to retain
> > >> this
> > >> numbering, then I would suggest the following numbering scheme:
> > >>
> > >> IEEE Std 1802.16/Conf 1-20xx
> > >>
> > >> If not, then I would suggest the following:
> > >>
> > >> IEEE Std 802.16/Conf 1-20xx
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to get a sense of the SEC's preference for numbering these
> > >> types
> > >> of documents. Could you tell me whether this requires a SEC vote? If
> > >> we
> > > can
> > >> work the language prior to the NesCom meeting in June, we can
> > >> hopefully
> > > get
> > >> this resolved.
> > >>
> > >> (See attached file: parnumber95_5-05-03.rtf)
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yvette Ho Sang
> > >> Manager, Standards Publishing Programs
> > >> IEEE Standards Activities
> > >> +1 732 562 3814
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >