RE: stds-802-16: Re: Clarification
Thanks again Roger. I don't share ALL your views but this is not the time
and place to discuss them.
I also view that some of the issues are within TGa and could be addressed by
Brian.
See you in Calgary.
David Trinkwon
Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:37 AM
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16: Re: Clarification
>Roger - Sorry to be a pain, but I'm having difficulty understanding
>the current process - where we are and where we're headed. I would
>appreciate your clarification before I return my ballot and comments
>etc. There are four topics :
>
>a) Letter Ballot #5
>
>This is in two parts.
>
>i) Authority to carry on normal WG activity at the Calgary Interim
>Meeting. I believed that we automatically had this under the PARs
>since we have not yet finalized a Draft Standard to go to Sponsor
>Ballot. Why do we need to vote now on this aspect ?
>
>ii) Authority to (potentially) issue a new Draft and request SEC
>approval for Sponsor Ballot at / after the Calgary Plenary. You have
>already clarified that this does not preclude other courses of
>action from the Calgary meeting, so I'm missing the point of why we
>need to vote on this one specific possible course of action.
David,
According to the 802 rules, "No quorum is required at meetings held
in conjunction with the Plenary session since the Plenary session
time and place is established well in advance. A quorum is required
at other Working Group meetings." In January, 802.11 ran into a lot
of problems (ending with a SEC appeal) that began when they tried to
start a Working Group Letter Ballot at an interim session without a
quorum. If the WG chooses, in Letter Ballot #5, to authorize the WG
to act without a formal quorum at Session #19, I believe it will
significantly reduce the likelihood of the process being derailed by
protest.
Note: Because of our liberal membership rules, we rarely have a
quorum; I don't think we've had one since Session #1. However, we
need to be very careful this time.
>Since this is really a "Procedural" Motion which is out for Letter
>Ballot, should the pass rate be 50%, and Commentary should probably
>have a (new) Procedural Comment Category (rather than just editorial
>or technical).
>
>b) Rejection of Sponsor Ballot Request
>
>I haven't seen a report of the actual results and reasons for the
>SEC rejection of our request, and what issues / comments the SEC
>needs to see resolved before we re-submit a proposal. From the (few)
>emails which you circulated prior to (or during) the voting process
>the main issues seemed to be :
>
>i) Addressing the perceived 802.11 coexistence issues / topics.
>ii) Resolving the outstanding TBDs
>iii) Addressing more clearly / constructively the "Negative" comments
>
>Were there other reasons / factors that we should know about ?
I also mentioned another comment from the 802 Vice Chair, who said "I
say that you shouldn't go to Sponsor Ballot with a document that you
aren't willing to stand behind being published as a Standard."
You can read the comments following the reflector threads:
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg02129.html
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg02181.html
>Does 802 produce a set of comments / issues in support of its votes ?
No.
>Will you be presenting a detailed report / analysis of the SEC
>voting / issues before or at the Calgary meeting - together with a
>set of objectives / priorities for addressing them ?
No, because I think the issues are transparent:
Regarding (i), I've already explained my approach to the coexistence
problem <http://ieee802.org/16/arc/802-16list2/msg00484.html>. I've
spoken to some SEC members, and I think they will accept it.
Regarding (ii), people need to understand that we need to resolve all
open technical issues before we go to Sponsor Ballot.
Regarding (iii), I hope that people have a better idea now of the
importance of technical rebuttal statements. I discussed that at the
Opening Plenary in St. Louis and will do so again in Calgary.
However, I believe that the lack of proper rebuttals is more than
just an oversight. In many cases, particularly when addressing the
existence of multiple modes, the rebuttals completely avoid
addressing the issue raised. This may be a symptom of a deeper
problem.
>c) Call for Contributions
>
>Your call for Contributions on "Mergers and Consolidations" seems to
>have come out of the blue. It was not discussed or voted on at the
>St Louis meeting and does not appear to address the specific issues
>involved in the SEC Sponsor Ballot rejection (and I haven't seen any
>SEC comments concerning the technical content of D3 or the number of
>options / modes).
By addressing the comment resolutions, the SEC members addressed the
technical content indirectly.
>I also haven't seen a Call for Contributions on the specific topics
>relevant to the Sponsor Ballot rejection (see above).
No. Perhaps that would have been a good idea. As far as I am
concerned, such comments are welcome.
>In my opinion, the current Call for Contributions is out of order,
>and a different one is required to address the SEC issues.
>
>So far, we have avoided detailed / objective technical analysis /
>comparison against the FRD and Channel / Traffic models because we
>have not actually eliminated or added any technical proposals since
>the original contributions (except Mesh which seemed to creep in
>through the TG4 side door). We have just consolidated / rationalized
>into the current D3 format/structure and filled out a bunch of
>details, and further actions were identified at St Louis to complete
>this process. If we are now expecting to add or delete specific
>(significant) technical modes / options (and I hear some rumors to
>that effect) then we MUST insist that this be done by due proper
>technical evaluation / comparison against the established criteria,
>otherwise we cannot claim to be following an accredited Standards
>creation process.
To my knowledge, there is nothing in the 802 or IEEE rules requiring
"proper technical evaluation / comparison against the established
criteria". Neither can I find anything on this topic in the
procedures of ANSI, which is IEEE-SA's accrediting body. My personal
opinion is that the numerous demands for this kind of approach in
TG3/TGa have led to little benefit but have succeeded in setting back
the project by many, many months. We make decisions by consensus, not
by idealized technical judgements. (And consensus does not mean
unanimity.)
>Personally, I think that we should continue to revise / refine D3 to
>meet the SEC concerns and then resubmit for Sponsor Ballot. Opening
>up the draft for new proposals (additions or significant deletions)
>will force a more lengthy technical process (possibly two or three
>meeting cycles) and delay the whole project to the point of market
>irrelevance (we're getting pretty close to that now).
I made every effort I could to get the draft to Sponsor Ballot, but
it was roundly rejected. The silver lining of this cloud is that we
can move forward with addressing the problems that we would have
fixed in Sponsor Ballot, shortening the time we spend there.
>d) Calgary Meeting Agenda
>
>Your Draft agenda sticks to the TGa MAC / PHY split. Many of us have
>previously complained about the way that this divides the Group into
>unnecessary / inefficient factions,
I agree that we are divided into "unnecessary / inefficient
factions". I don't think that is related to having parallel PHY and
MAC meetings.
>and this is even more true now that we don't have any significant /
>numerous comments to resolve. My preference is to meet in Calgary as
>a single TGa group and address the Draft Standard as a whole,
>focussing on the SEC issues etc. This will also offset the effect of
>having a new Mobile Study Group in action, which will also dilute
>the pool of talent available for resolving TGa issues.
I am showing parallel PHY/MAC sessions in case TGa needs them. The
overlap with the WBWA SG is on Monday and Tuesday only, so I agree
that this would be a likely time for TGa to stay together. TGa might
even want to stay together all week. However, there may yet be a
significant number of comments to resolve and contributions to
address. I have received 58 Commentary comments so far, but the
deadline is still 11 days off. I think we should make a greater
effort to stimulate people to think about creating a lot more.
Roger
>David Trinkwon
>Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
>USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
>UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586