| Bob:
The RAC has limited bandwidth for mandatory coordination reviews, and the 6.1.b question is intended as a filter to reduce the number of projects that the RAC has to review. If during draft development, the P802.15.7a project folk come up with something new that would interest the RAC, (or that they are concerned might provoke late in the process RAC comments), a simple message to me or the RAC Secretary would get us to take a look without need to do a modified PAR. As I’m sure you know, the Mandatory Editorial Coordination checklist also lets the MEC reviewer flag a project for RAC review during Standards Committee ballot. The one place where I personally believe a YES answer with the “RAC may want to review”, is on a revision of a standard where the RAC hasn’t looked at it for some significant time. In that case review for current terms and usage is appropriate even if no new registry related text is anticipated in the revision.
Unless the criteria in the PAR form instruction is met for review, a NO answer is appropriate.
—Bob
Hi Bob
Thanks for the comment. At one point there was an expressed desire for
the RAC to review all the PARs, hence the yes whether it was needed or
not. If a NO is an acceptable answer, and a proper one in this case, then
I am fine with that
Best
Bob
At 09:47 AM 2/17/2020 -0800, ROBERT GROW wrote:
802.15 colleagues:
I submit the following personal comment for consideration during the
March Plenary session.. (Comment has not been review nor approved
by the RAC.)
Item 6.1.b — The RAC has the option to review any project and doesn’t
need the box checked to give them permission in case they may want to
review a draft. The answer and explanation are not consistent
with the PAR form instructions (quoted below) in that the explanation
does not indicate a new registry or new use of an existing registry
expected to be included in the project. Either the explanation
needs to be improved (see the P802.1ASdm draft PAR also submitted for
March 802 consideration as an example), or the answer should be
“Noâ€.
The IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC) is a mandatory
coordination body.
If the proposed standard requires (or is expected to require) the unique
identification of objects or numbers for use in industry, the project has
registration activity. This does not cover things like code points
defined within the standard.
A YES answer with brief explanation is appropriate if:
1. The proposed standard creates a new registry.
2. The proposed standard includes new use of an existing registry
(whether IEEE RA or other registry authority).
Please visit the IEEE Registration Authority website
(http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/index.html)
for additional information regarding existing registries.
Bob Grow
Chair, IEEE Registration Authority Committee
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Specialty Networks
Chair IEEE 2030.5 Working Group for Smart Energy Profile 2
Co-Chair IEEE P2030 Task Force 3 on Smartgrid Communications
11 Robert Toner Blvd, Suite 5-301
North Attleboro, MA 02763 USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email: bheile@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
|