Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[802SEC] FW: Report on CS SAB meeting


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:48 PM
Subject: BOUNCE Non-member submission from
["Roger B. Marks" <>] 

From Wed Nov  7 19:47:51 2001
Received: from ( [])
	by (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) with SMTP id
	for <>; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 12403 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 2001 00:47:49 -0000
Received: from (HELO ? (
  by with SMTP; 8 Nov 2001 00:47:49 -0000
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:47:53 -0700
Message-Id: <p04310124b80e1e49f219@[]>
From: "Roger B. Marks" <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Report on CS SAB meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Dear SEC:

Jim asked me to represent LMSC at yesterday's Computer Society SAB 
meeting. Here is a report on relevant issues. It's mostly in the 
meeting's chronological order, and some interesting stuff is at 

*Attendance was low (Lowell Johnson [Chair], John Walz [Secy], Jim 
Moore, Jack Cole, John Daniel [CS Staff], Roger Marks, Fiorenza 
Albert-Howard, Jim Isaak [afternoon only], and (briefly) Steve 
Diamond. Gary Robinson, Paul Eastman, and Don Wright called in for an 
hour or two.

*The CS announced their new Executive Director (David Hennage) 
<>. He 
came by to meet the SAB and made a good impression.

*Lowell said that only six of the twelve sponsors turned in a report, 
and none by the deadline. Because they were late, they didn't get 
into the huge Agenda Book used for the CS Board of Governors meeting. 
It seemed to me that Jim turned the LMSC report in on time, but I 
didn't have hard facts on this.

*Gary Robinson gave a Treasurer's report by phone. He noted that all 
Sponsors do their finances differently. An LMSC audit is underway and 
he expects to discuss it with Bob Grow next week in Austin. Lowell 
noted that the CS seems to think that SAB is seeing income from 
Sponsors; he is trying to educate them otherwise. Also, the JTC1 TAG 
seems to be expecting $35K from IEEE, but the CS does not seem to be 
offering anything.

*Jim Isaak led an agenda item on "how to get IEEE to invest in 
marketing IEEE standards." The emphasis was not on selling books but 
on urging industry to participate in the process and adopt the 
results. He indicated that IEEE staff could help in coordinating 
success-story articles in the trade press. We discussed the effect of 
the GetIEEE802 program. I mentioned its value in introducing our work 
into academic environments, and Jim agreed. I mentioned articles I've 
written on 802 standards (and later sent Jim hyperlinks to them), but 
the focus is on other Sponsors more in need of publicity. I mentioned 
the recent USA Today article on Bill Gates and 802.11. People were 
very interested. Lowell asked for an email on this topic; I sent it. 
There was discussion about putting a list of this kind of publicity 
on the CS web site. John Daniel intends to work on it.

*Jim Isaak and Jack Cole had an action item "to prepare for IEEE-USA 
a technical information statement on US Gov't use of voluntary, 
consensus standards." Jim Carlo is listed as having a relevant paper 
to submit. I added my name and emailed a hyperlink to a recent paper 
of mine on the topic.

*Jack Cole is active in an effort on Information Assurance. Some 
government agencies would like to see a standard. Jack had a draft 
Scope and Purpose statement that might go into a PAR. The focus there 
is on "Certificate Issuing and Management Components" of a Public Key 
Infrastructure (PKI). This would be relevant within 802 (certainly 
within 802.16). In order to get this project going quickly, the SAB 
passed a motion to form an information assurance study group under 
the SAB.

*There has apparently been a lot of consternation on the issue of 
voting and the meaning of consensus within a Working Group. This 
results from a complaint from a participant in some Working Group to 
high levels in IEEE-SA (or maybe even IEEE) about the outcome of a 
Working Group vote. The ramifications are ugly, but I won't comment 
because it's all hearsay to me. In any case, this issue has driven 
the SAB to try and elucidate some procedures. The intent is to 
provide only "default" processes for Working Groups that have none. 
Jim Isaak led discussion of some changes to the Policies and 
Procedures. There were major changes to the version that had 
circulated before the meeting. Jim Isaak will edit the document and 
forward it to "interested people" with an attempt to complete it this 
week. By the end of November, Lowell intends to announce a 30-day 
letter ballot.

*The discussion above led to the issue of precedence of rules. The 
SAB P&P mistakenly puts Sponsor Policies and Procedures below 
Robert's Rules of Order; this will be fixed. But there was also 
concern about when Sponsor Rules should take precedence over SAB 
rules, and how to structure the SAB P&P to make this possible. There 
was no clear answer, but one proposal was to include a statement in 
the SAB P&P saying that, when the SAB approves the P&P of a Sponsor, 
the Sponsor P&P is incorporated into the SAB rules as applicable to 
that Sponsor.

*The assumption of this discussion is that Sponsor P&Ps are always 
approved by the SAB. So I asked if the SAB has recently reviewed the 
LMSC rules. I was told that the SAB has not seen any rules changes 
from LMSC in a long time. Any rules changes we make should be sent to 
the SAB for approval. Otherwise, we run the risk of a problem. 
(Subsequently, I looked in the SAB P&P to find the requirement that 
Sponsor P&Ps need to be approved. I didn't find this explicitly; the 
closest I could find was this statement: "the SAB is responsible for 
... oversight responsibility for all standards activities to assure 
conformance to approved policies and procedures".)

*I asked about this item in the SAB Policies and Procedures:
"4.3 Document Availability: All interested persons shall be permitted 
to obtain all committee documents, including draft standards prior to 
approval by the IEEESB." I was told that this means that I am 
_required_ to offer drafts upon request of an interested party. To 
me, this means that, if IEEE does not offer the draft for sale, I am 
obligated to provide it myself. (This is important to me, since I 
have been concerned about delays in putting drafts into the catalog.) 
I wonder if this clause also means that an interested party is 
entitled to a free copy. I don't think so.

*Since the autumn of 1999, the SAB has this role: "To approve 
'un-named' Computer Society Service Awards based on criteria approved 
by SAB and notified to the CS awards committee." It seems that these 
are the Service Awards <>. 
Specifically, the SAB would like to award a Certificate of 
Appreciation to active Working Group participants following the 
publication of a standard. The SAB would like the Sponsors, like 
LMSC, to be more active in making use of these awards for their 
members. (I just looked up the process, and it's not too bad, but 
charges are involved. Who would pay these?)

*SAB Meetings in 2002
-Feb 5 at Sheraton World Hotel Orlando
-May 7 at Doubletree Columbia River in Portland OR
-Sept 10: telecon (at Stds Board mtg) 10-12 am ET
-Nov. 4 at Hyatt Harborside Boston