Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
Sam, there is no precise rule about the relationship between PICS and
SHALLs, except to say that each SHALL really needs to be reflected in some
PICS. "May" "Should" "Will" and "Can" are not generally represented in
PICS. In general we try to limit the use of "Will" and "Should" because
they tend to create ambiguity.
In an ideal world, all PICS would relate back to SHALLs. However, what is
really needed is to have the PICS comprehensively specify all that is
required in the conformant product, so that when a product conforms to the
PICS it implements the algorithms of the standard as required.
The PICS is absolutely crucial because it is the PICS against which all
products are measured. As I stated in my last note to the reflector, the
802.17 Working Group has the responsibility to complete the draft before
approving it and sending it to sponsor ballot. I personally believe that
completion of the PICS should be among the highest priority jobs for all of
the section editors. Having the PICS complete should be a requirement
placed on the next draft of 802.17. Because of the importance of the PICS,
I would assume that the working group would want a full 30 day ballot cycle
to very carefully review them.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blakey, Sam" <Sam.Blakey@xxxxxxx>
To: "'Kshitij Kumar'" <kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Mike Takefman'"
<tak@xxxxxxxxx>; "'RPRWG'" <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
>
> People's Front of RPR,
>
> Kshitij has very eloquently portrayed my precise concerns regarding draft
> 2.2 (the PICS), so I won't labour the point.
>
> I have some questions about PICS (which at the moment are in comments, but
I
> can change the comment to suit the rules...)
>
> 1) Are PICS items to shall / may a relationship of the form:
> a) one to one
> b) many to one (more than one PICS per shall / may)
> c) one to many (one PICS per more than one shall / may)
>
> One, two or all three of a, b, and c may be true.
>
> 2) Should every shall source a PICS?
>
> 3) Should every may source a PICS?
>
> 4) What happens to words like will, can, should, is recommended etc?
>
> Sam
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kshitij Kumar [mailto:kkumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:10 AM
> > To: 'Mike Takefman'; RPRWG
> > Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > My interpretation of voting APPROVE (with or without
> > comments) on this draft is that we are agree that the draft
> > is complete (possibly with optional modifications).
> >
> > It is important for us to realize that this draft is still
> > far from complete.
> >
> > For instance, one important area that is clearly lacking is
> > the specification of the PICS Proforma. This crucial
> > information will be the basis for claiming conformance with
> > the standard.
> >
> > For example, Clause 5, Page 86 contains an editors note "This
> > standards draft shall not be considered to be complete until
> > this PICS proforma is complete. The editors estimate that the
> > level of completeness of this PICS proforma is 5%." For
> > Clause 6, Page 155 has a similar editor's note, except the
> > level of completeness is 10%.
> >
> > And please look at the other PICS Proforma clauses as well.
> >
> > Since the editors have explicitly stated that the present
> > draft is incomplete, and since an APPROVE vote on this draft
> > would mean that we are in agreement with the draft (as it is
> > today) becoming the standard, we need to vote DISAPPROVE to
> > give the editors time to complete the draft, including the
> > PICS Proforma, based on comments received this time.
> >
> > Because of the critical nature of the PICS Proforma, we must
> > have a full 30 day review of the final PICS once it is
> > completed, and not be forced to review it in a short
> > recirculation ballot cycle, IMHO.
> >
> > After the review period - PICS entries - like anything else
> > new coming into the draft - should be voted into the draft,
> > one PICS entry at a time.
> >
> > I also do not agree with the view that the PICS can be
> > ignored until sponsor ballot - they are too critical to be
> > left till so late in the cycle.
> >
> > Further, allowing ONLY changed portions of the draft to be
> > commented against, forces us away from the preferred method
> > of improving the quality of the draft overall - since only a
> > subset can be improved. I agree we need to do so according to
> > the recirc process, but this means we should not really be
> > trying to be in recirculation until after the next meeting.
> >
> > Therefore, if we are looking to progress the standard as
> > quickly as possible, we must DISAPPROVE this draft, which has
> > been declared incomplete by the editors, and to task the
> > editors with completing the next draft including all of the
> > new PICS, have those voted in one by one by the WG, and then
> > to have that draft balloted prior to the next meeting.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Kshitij Kumar.
> > Director, System Architecture,
> > Lantern Communications.
> > 408-521-6806
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 1:20 PM
> > To: RPRWG
> > Subject: [RPRWG] [Fwd: Ballot Reminder - your thoughts?]
> >
> >
> >
> > RPRWGers,
> >
> > the ballot runs for approximately 1 more week, please
> > remember to get your votes in. Failure to respond to
> > ballots will result in loss of voting rights.
> >
> > A reminder about process.
> >
> > A passing ballot does not imply that the draft will
> > be forwarded to Sponsor Ballot. The WG must vote to
> > forward the draft for Sponsor Ballot. What a passing
> > ballot does is begin the recirculation process on
> > the draft. Once we are in recirculations, you may
> > only comment on changed portions of the draft or on
> > areas affected by a change elsewhere. Hence the process
> > begins to become bounded. As a WG, we should not forward
> > a draft for sponsor until we have reached the point where
> > improvements to the draft / concensus have been maximized.
> >
> > Thus your approve vote can be interpreted as either a
> > belief that it is time to start getting the draft
> > ready for sponsor ballot, or that you believe that it
> > is time to begin to recirculate. Both are equivalent.
> >
> > In terms of voting approve with comments versus
> > dissaprove with comments. If you fundamentally believe
> > that something is broken, then you may choose to vote
> > disapprove with comments. If you believe that something is
> > broken, but believe that you can work with your
> > fellow RPRWGers to resolve the comments you can vote
> > approve with comments. There is risk in voting approve
> > with comments, in that if the comment is not resolved
> > to your satisfaction, but the ballot passed and the
> > text is unchanged, then you are out of luck until the
> > draft comes back in sponsor (and you end up being a
> > member of the sponsor group, which is not guaranteed).
> >
> > Note: You may change your vote from approve to disapprove
> > during recirculations. All you have to do is comment on a
> > changed portion of text.
> >
> > Should a recirculated ballot fail, we are back to commenting
> > on the entire draft (and the number advances to the next
> > major revision).
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > --
> > Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
> > Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
> >