RE: [RPRWG] Agenda Items for Albuquerque
Raj,
I have mixed feelings on this topic. I come from the MSC,
which places a very low threshold on the formation of study
groups. That has been a very successful strategy.
I really see little difference between a Study Group and
an adhoc, and anyone has the right to hold adhoc discussions.
(Although some in other 802 groups dislike such informality).
As such, I would strongly encourage study groups that have
an advocate who is willing to do the work. As we all know,
the initial phases of almost any development are controversial,
sometimes confrotational, and often marginally productive.
Starting the work early, with a study group, helps quickly
transition through these early aclimation phases.
However, I also firmly believe in the following:
1) Any study group needs a committed advocate, to assume the
simultaneous roles of Chair, Secretary, and Webmaster.
2) I have few additional resources to commit on extensions.
3) I have (and expect to continue with) committed resources
towards "polishing" Clause 9 and Clause 10, for next
week's discussion and early Sponsor comments.
4) Any assistance in any official capacity is unlikely
to be helpful until after P802.3ah Sponsor ballot
completion. Until then, I stand away from targets.
More power to anyone else that has the time and can cope
with those of us that will be busy for the next few months.
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Raj Sharma
>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:21 PM
>> To: Robert D. Love; Mike Takefman; stds-802-17
>> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Agenda Items for Albuquerque
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> It is great to see your gusto even as you transition to other efforts.
>> I like the spirit in which you have stated what we need to do for 17a.
>> However, let me voice my concerns of doing some of the specific things
>> mentioned by you now.
>>
>> I feel the best process would be to identify what we want to work on 17a.
>> I am sure, as vendors, we all have our pet features but we need some
>> direct input from users. I have started this dialog with a few
>> and requested
>> them to provide inputs and rationale behind it directly to the WG. This
>> requires us to identify a time point when we can get these users
>> either on a phone
>> or in person to do this. So, picking a point in time is good.
>> However, approving
>> the formation of study group now has it drawbacks as mentioned below.
>>
>> The risk of opening such a discussion now and letting it become a
>> debate implying that the current standard lacks these features
>> will propagate
>> an impression that even after 4 years of work the standard *lacks* useful
>> features. I feel we should do this after we are into sponsor ballot and
>> FCS-ed our first product. We still need "all-hands-on-deck" for this.
>>
>> Finally, I think we need diversity of thought. After 4 years we are all
>> standard-weary and either agree or disagree on the same issues. We will
>> perpetuate this unless we bring some fresh minds into the dot17
>> enclave and allow them
>> to be thought leaders for a while. At the same time, people like
>> you and Mike
>> can guide them through the process they have to go.
>>
>> I am open to indicate that we prefer such a formation in early
>> 2004 and announce
>> to all concerned of the time line to come prepared for the first
>> gathering in
>> Spring of 2004. However, approving the formation of the group
>> right now will
>> dilute our efforts on the current ballot and make it a
>> distraction for others.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:52 AM
>> To: Mike Takefman; stds-802-17
>> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Agenda Items for Albuquerque
>>
>>
>>
>> All, at this meeting there should be a concerted effort to begin the work
>> necessary for the next edition of the RPR standard. At a minimum, by
>> Thursday afternoon there should be a motion requesting a "study
>> group" that
>> will be looking into the standardization of some extension of RPR.
>>
>> 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: "Mike Takefman" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "stds-802-17" <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:00 AM
>> Subject: [RPRWG] Agenda Items for Albuquerque
>>
>>
>> >
>> > RPRWGers,
>> >
>> > Our opening Plenary will start on monday afternoon at 1, but
>> > the agenda appears to mostly be administrative at the moment.
>> >
>> > I have not received any requests for presentation slots, but
>> > there are always late requests. So there may be some technical
>> > content.
>> >
>> > Right now the agenda appears as follows.
>> >
>> > Usual Boilerplate
>> > Review of Financial Operations for 2002, 2003
>> > Vice-Chair Election or Acclamation ?
>> > Sponsor Ballot - Are we Ready and What is the Process
>> > 802.17a - Start of WG Ballot
>> >
>> > Tuesday morning we will start with the editors report
>> > and then figure out what the CR schedule is.
>> >
>> > We will also review 802.17a on tuesday and resolve
>> > some comments that came from Norm/Tony. But everyone
>> > is free to give it a read prior to the meeting and
>> > generate some discussion.
>> >
>> > Wednesday morning the ballot closes and in the
>> > afternoon we get the editor's report and finish CR.
>> >
>> > We may begin our closing plenary on wednesday IFF
>> > we are ahead on schedule. Otherwise we start it thursday
>> > morning.
>> >
>> > mike
>> > --
>> > Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
>> > Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
>> > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>> > 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>> > voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>