| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Michael, some comments below. Kind Regards -Vivek From: Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com Vivek, I didn't participate in these discussions,
and am concerned about the chosen path and about your statement below: "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." Why is there concern about the stability
of the draft at this point? [VG] The concern is not now, but would be in July, if for
some reason we did not file for Approval of base spec then and consequently if
we had to file a PAR extension for base spec then. As you may know the PAR for base 802.21 spec expires in Dec
2008. While none among us that I know of is currently anticipating
that, we have to consider/outline all possibilities and this does happen to be
a possibility as well. That is all. The suggestion of a separate 802.21.1
group if correctly presented below, is a suitable solution given that this is
perfectly acceptable within the process and separates the dependencies. There
would be no need to create an amendment and cancel the separate group, as the
security group could proceed to conclusion and generate its document. [VG] The Security SG clearly indicated that the proposed
project is an amendment to base 802.21 standard and not a separate standalone
project. The processes are here to serve the
volunteers who are creating the standard, not the reverse. Best Regards, Michael From: ext 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 |