Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] 120 contributions to 16e for Session#33
Hi Jeff,
As Phil said there are 120 something contributions for consideration at 16e Session #33, and it is definitely necessary for us to organize this. One of those contributions are PKMv2 related documents that didn't have a chance for Security Adhoc review. I believe it is a responsibility of Security Adhoc to include them in harmonization process so as to reduce the load in Portland.
Regards,
JH SONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Mandin" <jmandin@STREETWAVES-NETWORKS.COM>
To: <STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] 120 contributions to 16e for Session#33
> JH's request is fine with me. We will only harmonize the contributions
> that were formally received by the 802.16e Security Adhoc, however.
>
> To do otherwise would set a terrible precedent - both in terms of
> Working Group procedure and in terms of giving proper consideration to
> what we are actually incorporating.
>
> - Jeff Mandin
> Security Adhoc Chair
>
> JUNHYUK SONG wrote:
>
> >MessageI 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >- JH SONG
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Itzik Kitroser
> > To: STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > DJ
> >
> > -----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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > -----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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>