I fully agree, and just
expressed my personal opinion.
DJ's mail was just an
example, and nothing personal against anyone.
Just though that the ad
hoc output should be probably presented by the ad hoc chair, nothing against
suggestions and/or inputs to the group.
My personal wish was to
see a process similar to the one done in the handoff ad hoc, which was excellent,
intensive, open and conclusive.
Anyway, If my mail
reflected anything negative, I'm sorry.
Best Regards,
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From: JUNHYUK SONG
[mailto:santajunman@hanafos.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 9:49 AM
To: Itzik Kitroser;
STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
120 contributions to 16e for Session#33
I think everyone in the group can
make a suggestion.
DJ simply suggests that Security Adhoc group meet early in the week,
so we can reconcile various contributions that didn't have a chance to be
harmonized.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday,
June 27, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Re:
[STDS-802-16-MOBILE] 120 contributions to 16e for Session#33
DJ,
Small
query, since I would have expected to see such summary from Jeff, as the ad hoc
chair, rather than you.
Was the
harmonization an open process through the reflector or a private harmonization
between companies?
I think
that it is important, since the output of the security ad hoc must reflect a
consensus (or majority decision) in which everybody had the chance to provide
an opinion.
If the
harmonization was not reached through the ad hoc but rather as a private (and
legitimate) agreement between companies (for example in a private interim
meeting) you should reflect it as such (although than I really don't understand
why we had ad hoc at all).
Itzik.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:53
AM
To:
STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
120 contributions to 16e for Session#33
A number
of the contributions into the security adhoc have been pre-harmonized. I
suggest that the security adhoc meet sufficiently early in the week so we can
sift the inputs and if we can agree, approve a batch of submissions as the
output of the adhoc. This should streamline the security work.
I am
preparing summary slides showing how the various security proposals
interrelate. It seems that these might fulfil the purpose that Phil is
proposing.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Kiernan, Brian G.
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 1:10
PM
To:
STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
120 contributions to 16e for Session#33
Phil's
proposal makes eminent sense to me. I agree, there is no way we will get
through 120 contributions in Portland without giving each one very short
shrift. I strongly urge consolidation, where possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Barber
[mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM]
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004
03:46 PM
To:
STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] 120
contributions to 16e for Session#33
Something like 120 contributions
have been uploaded to 16e for consideration at Sessions#33. We have only
through July 2nd to provide reply commentary on these contributions, plus
all other comments to the D3 draft. I think we need to organize immediately,
or there is no way that we are going to get this done and be ready to make it
through this volume of contributions at Portland.
The nightmare scenario is having to
wade through all of these individual contribution presentations, discussion, potential
modification, at the meeting itself. Based on this volume, we will have
no choice but to bull our way through, omit discussion and potential
modification, and just vote. Because of the volume of material it is
likely that members will not have adequately reviewed all material to make an
informed vote at that time without discussion, which will not be
possible. So good contributions will be voted down because of the volume
of work.
In order to avoid that outcome, I
think we need to organize material into common topicality that volunteers can
address both through the list and in reply commentary. This will give
contributors the benefit of some focused evaluation and provide members relief
from having to review all contributions. To facilitate establishing
topical focus, I would encourage contributors to provide a one or two paragraph
overview/summary of their contribution to the list.
Any thoughts on this proposal?
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
President
Broadband Mobile Technologies, Inc.
972-365-6314 direct (US)
+44 (0) 7909 794959 mobile (UK)
+85 (2) 9247 5398 mobile (HK)
925-396-0269 fax