[STDS-802-16] Fwd: [802SEC] Request for assistance on ISO/IEC JTC1 project
FYI.
To see the attachment, see the message in the EC reflector archive:
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg08445.html
Roger
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> Date: August 21, 2006 04:57:11 AM MDT
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Request for assistance on ISO/IEC JTC1 project
>
> Dear EC members,
>
> Please see the below message from Andrew Myles who is leading the
> 802-wide effort on responding to the ISO/IEC/JTC1 project. Please
> forward in request for input to your WG members and have them reply
> directly to Andrew at andrew.myles@cisco.com.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul Nikolich
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> Dear IEEE 802.x WG members
>
> The quick story (with details below) is:
>
> a.. Potential problems related the approval of WAPI as an
> amendment to ISO/IEC 8802-11 were recently avoided
> b.. The WAPI/802.11i debate highlighted important questions
> regarding the relationship between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC
> c.. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 has now started a process to review the
> cooperation agreement with IEEE 802
> d.. IEEE 802 LMSC is planning to make a submission to the
> cooperation agreement review
> e.. Comments are requested from IEEE 802 members with a
> particular focus on identified major issues
>
> Note responses are due by CoB on Monday 28 August 2006 to Andrew
> Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com). Also note that this request is
> applicable to any IEEE 802 WG that may want to standardise
> internationally through ISO/IEC.
>
> Andrew Myles
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> Potential problems related the approval of WAPI as an amendment to
> ISO/IEC 8802-11 were recently avoided
>
> In 2005, both WAPI (proposed by SAC, the Chinese National Body) and
> IEEE 802.11i (proposed by the UK National Body on behalf of the
> IEEE 802.11 WG) were submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 for international
> standardisation as amendments to ISO/IEC 8802-11 (plus various
> amendments) using the JTC1 Fast Track ballot procedure. ISO/IEC
> 8802-11 is effectively the same as the IEEE 802.11 standard.
>
> Approval by ISO/IEC JTC1 of both amendments as international
> standards would have been problematic because the two amendments
> contained contradictory editing instructions. Approval of only the
> WAPI amendment would have also been problematic because this would
> have made it almost impossible for any further IEEE 802.11
> amendments to be submitted to ISO/IEC for international
> standardisation given the significant differences that would have
> existed between IEEE 802.11 (using 802.11i) and ISO/IEC 8802-11
> (using WAPI).
>
> Fortunately, these potential problems do not need to be addressed
> because in June 2006 the Fast Track ballot on WAPI failed and the
> Fast Track ballot on IEEE 802.11i passed. IEEE 802.11i has now been
> published as an ISO/IEC international standard.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> The WAPI/802.11i debate highlighted important questions regarding
> the relationship between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC
>
> During the 802.11i/WAPI debate, the existing cooperation agreement
> between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1 was quoted on multiple
> occasions to support various positions related to whether or not
> IEEE 802.11i and/or WAPI should be approved as international
> standards.
>
> The existing cooperation agreement is documented in "ISO/IEC TR
> 8802-1:2001: Overview of Local Area Network Standards" (attached).
> This document mostly contains a general (and somewhat dated)
> introduction to IEEE 802 standards for wired and wireless LANs.
> However, clause 4 defines a detailed process for cooperation
> between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1 that enables almost
> automatic international standardisation of IEEE 802 standards. This
> agreement was based on earlier ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 documents and
> resolutions, including "ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 6N11917: Procedures for
> ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1 and IEEE 802 LMSC Cooperative
> Working" (attached).
>
> Interestingly, it appears that the detailed cooperation process
> defined in ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001 has never been used in full
> because the annex that is supposed to catalogue standards approved
> using the process is empty. In many cases, IEEE 802 standards have
> not been submitted to ISO/IEC for international standardisation.
> Where IEEE 802 standards have been submitted to ISO/IEC, they have
> always (?) been approved using the JTC1 Fast Track ballot
> procedure. An attempt to allow ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 NBs to comment on
> the IEEE 802.11ma draft according to the defined process recently
> failed because the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Secretariat failed to pass on
> liaisons from the IEEE 802.11 WG to the NBs. The lack of use of the
> cooperation agreement over a five year period immediately calls
> into question its effectiveness and usefulness.
>
> In ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 N13128 (attached), the Chinese NB states the
> current cooperation agreement between IEEE 802 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6
> needs "review, clarification and improvement". They highlight
> particular concerns relating to copyright ownership and potential
> competition from the IEEE as a developer of international/global
> standards. They also raise the question of whether the ISO/IEC
> 8802-11 standard can be modified within ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG1
> without approval from the IEEE 802.11 WG.
>
> Many IEEE 802 members are also concerned about the contents and
> effectiveness of this cooperation agreement, if only because the
> current agreement did not protect members from having to put a huge
> amount of effort and resources into the 802.11i/WAPI issue over a
> three period, with no useful gain.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 has now started a process to review the
> cooperation agreement with IEEE 802
>
> In June 2006, the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 plenary decided (see attached
> document ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 N13127) to request the SC6 NBs, IEEE SA,
> IEEE 802 LMSC, JTC1 and ITTF to review the various documents that
> define the current cooperation agreement. The documents (all
> attached) are:
>
> a.. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 6N11917: Procedures for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1
> and IEEE 802 LMSC Cooperative Working
> b.. ISO/IEC TR 8802-1:2001: Overview of Local Area Network Standards
> c.. Other relevant document, including motion 6.3.1 from ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC6 6N11240
> The process requires input to the ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 project
> editor by 27 September 2006.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> IEEE 802 LMSC is planning to make a submission to the cooperation
> agreement review
>
> IEEE 802 LMSC has received a request from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 to
> participate in the review of the cooperation agreement ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC6/WG1 and IEEE 802.11 LMSC. Paul Nikolich (Chair of IEEE 802
> LMSC) has requested Andrew Myles (andrew.myles@cisco.com) to
> facilitate the development of an IEEE 802 LMSC position for
> approval by IEEE 802 LMSC and subsequent submission to the ISO/IEC
> 8802-1:2001 project editor.
>
> Unfortunately, the time scales are relatively short. In an attempt
> to satisfy the required timescales, the following timetable will be
> used:
>
> a.. 21 Aug: Paul Nikolich sends this request to IEEE 802 LMSC
> members for forwarding to the various Working Groups .
> b.. 28 Aug: IEEE 802 members respond to Andrew Myles
> (andrew.myles@cisco.com) with comments and possibly volunteer to
> assist in following steps
> c.. 4 Sept: Volunteers complete draft proposed IEEE 802 LMSC
> position document
> d.. 5 Sept: Paul Nikolich distributes draft proposed IEEE 802
> LMSC position document to IEEE 802 LMSC and other interested parties
> e.. 6 Sept: Andrew Myles hosts a teleconference to discuss
> position with any interested parties
> f.. 15 Sept: Volunteers complete final proposed IEEE 802 LMSC
> position document
> g.. 16 Sept: Paul Nikolich distributes draft proposed IEEE 802
> LMSC position document to IEEE 802 LMSC for 10 day e-mail ballot
> h.. 26 Sept: Paul Nikolich submits approved IEEE 802 LMSC
> position document to ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 project editor
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> Comments are requested from IEEE 802 members with a particular
> focus on identified major issues
>
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 are requesting comments on any of the documents
> related to the cooperation agreement (including 6N11917, TR
> 8802-1:2001, 6N11240).
>
> However, to assist the process of developing an IEEE 802 position,
> IEEE 802 members are requested to focus on the following issues:
>
> a.. Does the material in ISO/IEC 8802-1:2001 not directly related
> to the cooperation process have any value?
> a.. Is there any need to keep or update this material, given it
> is difficult to maintain?
> b.. Should IEEE 802 submit any/some/all IEEE 802.x standards or
> amendments to ISO/IEC for international standardisation?
> a.. If so, why? For which IEEE 802 standards or amendments?
> b.. If not, why not? For which IEEE 802 standards or amendments?
> c.. How should ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 /WG1 NBs make technical input
> into IEEE 802.x standards or amendments as they are being developed?
> a.. Note: the NBs could provide a valuable perspective based on
> different assumption from those of typical 802.x members
> b.. How can the existing process be made to work better or is a
> new process required?
> c.. Could we use technology better to make the process smoother?
> d.. Should NB's be given the opportunity to join the Sponsor
> Ballot Pools? It this possible under current rules?
> e.. Should NB's be given the opportunity to join the Work Group
> Ballot Pools? It this possible under current rules?
> d.. Should IEEE 802 have sole responsibility for all development
> and maintenance of IEEE 802.x standards submitted to ISO/IEC for
> international standardisation
> a.. Note: this was a fundamental issue in the 802.11i/WAPI debate
> b.. Note: giving IEEE 802 responsibility for development (with
> ISO/IEC input) avoids any issues related to two organisations
> making independent changes to the same document
> e.. Should IEEE 802 retain copyright on any IEEE 802.x standards
> submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 for international standardisation?
> a.. Note: this appears to be the case in the current
> cooperation agreement, except when an IEEE 802 standard is
> subjected to Fast Track ballot
> b.. Note: this also appears to be the current practice, based
> on comments made by UK NB during recent Fast Track ballot on WAP
> c.. Note: ISO/IEC might not need copyright unless they wanted
> to make changes independent of IEEE 802
> f.. On what basis should ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 accept IEEE 802
> standards submitted for international standardisation?
> a.. How many NBs would be required to veto automatic
> international standardisation?
> b.. What is the alternate process if automatic standardisation
> is vetoed?
> Responses related to other issues or the detailed comments on the
> documents are also invited.
>
> All responses should be sent to Andrew Myles
> (andrew.myles@cisco.com) by CoB on Monday 28 August 2006.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.