PAR for Security related Amendments

["Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>]

Based on advice from Paul Nikolich (802 EC Chair), we did NOT file the PAR for Security related amendments to 802.21 standard.

 

This PAR is proposed as an amendment to base 802.21 specification (which is still under development and is NOT an Approved standard).

The current PAR submission process (and the subsequent tool in myProject) does NOT allow submission of Amendment projects until the base standard has been approved.

Paul’s advice was that since 802.21 base standard is close to completion we delay the submission of Security PAR until July, 2008.

Paul suggested that we could continue the early development work in SG phase as well and hopefully this would not impact the completion timelines of this project.

This would be the least complicated approach, according to him.

 

The current alternatives are not very attractive and could lead to significant procedural gyrations in SASB and NesCom PAR approval process as they are currently not set up to deal with this situation.

The only approach suggested at this point that could possibly work, would be to file for a separate standalone standard specification (not an amendment) Security project under 802.21 (..a 802.21.1)

Once this is approved we could start Security work under this project.

Subsequently when 802.21 base standard is approved, we could then file for an amendment project and roll over the work under the Amendment project.

We could then cancel the earlier approved standalone Security project.

 

Rather than go through all these steps, Paul’s advice was to delay the filing of Amendment PAR until July and continue the work in Study Group.

This is indeed contingent on the assumption/hope that we would file for base spec Approval with SASB before (or even at the same time) filing for approval of new Amendment PAR.

Paul suggested that we could ask 802 EC for approval to forward the Amendment PAR to NesCom (in July) on condition that the base spec is first approved by RevCom.

It’s possible that the base spec and the subsequent Amendment PAR could then both be approved around the same time depending on how these RevCom/NesCom meetings line up.

 

In case we don’t meet the above base spec completion timeline we would have to file for PAR extension for the base spec.

The base spec may then be interpreted as not being close to completion or being relatively unstable at that point of time.

Under such circumstances it is not clear how the SASB would treat the request for an Amendment PAR on this base spec.

I have notified Bob Grow (newly appointed to SASB) to take this up and give us suitable guidance going forward.

As soon as I hear something else would pass this along.

 

Best Regards

-Vivek