Re: [802SEC] Fwd: My REVCOM comment form for 5 December 2001 RevCom meeting
Geoff -
I assume Dave Ringle is working on establishing a voter category for Ed
Rocher? Mind you, as his classification makes no difference with respect to
the balance rules, the issue seems just a little bit academic...
Regards,
Tony
At 10:14 27/11/2001 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Attached are my REVCOM Comments on the 802 items that are on their agenda.
>
>The items on submittals other than 802.15 are (hopefully) minor and can be
>fixed or explained before REVCOM meets next Wednesday. Dave Ringle is
>already working on solving the balloting group discrepancies.
>
>If anyone wishes to discuss any of these items with me, I will be in all
>week and mostly at my desk.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:23:40 -0800
>>To: d.ringle@ieee.org
>>From: Geoff Thompson <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
>>Subject: My REVCOM comment form for 5 December 2001 RevCom meeting
>>Cc: thompson@ieee.org
>>
>>Subject: Comment form for 5 December 2001 RevCom meeting
>>(Couple of ugly ones in here, mine ain't so good either)
>>
>>New
>>
>>P802.15.1/D1.0.1 (C/LM) Standard for Information Technology -
>>Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and
>>Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 15.1: Wireless
>>Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
>>Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs?)
>>
>>ISSUES
>>substantive changes made to document:
>>Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments: X
>>balance of balloting group:
>>patent issues: X
>>editorial staff comments:
>>SCC14 comments:
>>legal issues/legal counsel comments: X
>>electronic files:
>>title change:
>>draft labeling:
>>
>>DISAPPROVE
>>I have several major issues with this submittal:
>>
>>1) The submitter (Vice-Chair) is not the WG Reporter from whom we have
>>the copyright release.
>>
>>2) Do we have a formal position from Counsel and Staff that establishes
>>that (1) the Bluetooth assurance letter conforms to PatCom requirements
>>for an assurance letter and (2) that the Bluetooth assurance letter
>>relieves 802.15 participants from (a) being subject to a Call for Patents
>>and (b) providing the IEEE with Assurance Letters separate from whatever
>>is provided to the BlueTooth SIG?
>>
>>3) What happens in general, and with respect to IP Assurance in
>>particular, if the Bluetooth SIG disappears?
>>What was promised in the PAR was that the project would follow the normal
>>IEEE process regarding assurance letters.
>>
>>4) The response to item 13 of the submittal form would not be an allowed
>>activity under the terms of the current agreement (item 10).
>>
>>5) As closely as I can tell, this proposal does not fulfill the Scope and
>>Purpose of the PAR. There seems to be no satisfaction nor mention
>>whatsoever of the implied goal of through the air transfer of data
>>between P802.15 and devices compliant with the established IEEE Std. 802.11.
>>
>>6) There seems to be an (implicit?) agreement between the IEEE and an
>>outside group which may limit the extent to which IEEE voters could make
>>technical changes for good technical reasons to the starting document. I
>>can't tell. It is my opinion that any agreement which may limit, restrict
>>or change the basis of development of an IEEE Standard must be submitted
>>as part of the REVCOM package in order for REVCOM to provide its proper
>>oversight of the IEEE Standards Development Process. I am suspicious that
>>this may be the underlying cause of the other problems.
>>
>>7) I am EXCEEDINGLY unhappy with the responses to DISAPPROVE ballots.
>>The responses are patronizing and flip (e.g. #15) or blatantly
>>non-technical (#1 & #2). In particular, it is my opinion that the
>>response to comments #1 & #2 are (a) technically inadequate (b) are
>>likely to produce user chaos in the marketplace if allowed to proceed
>>according to the BRG scenario (i.e. perhaps neither 802.11 nor 802.15
>>will work or the implementation that bullies the most will win.) and
>>finally violate the wording and what was understood from that wording in
>>the Scope of the issued PAR.
>>
>>Additional comments:
>>
>>I am highly disappointed that 802 (of which I am a member of the
>>governing council) has failed to deal adequately with this coexistence
>>issue. Other similar issues with respect to resolution of conflicting
>>protocols has been adequately dealt with in the past (Auto-negotiation
>>between 802.3 UTP, 802.9a and 100 Mb Token ring, all at the RJ-45 interface).
>>
>>There is no explanation of what portion of the proposed Standard is
>>required for posting, CD or diskette (item 15b).
>>
>>The 2001 list of Standards board members in the submitted front matter is
>>incorrect.
>>
>>P802.16/D5 (C/LM) Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks -
>>Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems
>>
>>ISSUES
>>substantive changes made to document:
>>Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments:
>>balance of balloting group:
>>patent issues:
>>editorial staff comments:
>>SCC14 comments: NOT RECEIVED
>>legal issues/legal counsel comments:
>>electronic files:
>>title change: DOESN'T MATCH PAR
>>draft labeling:
>>
>>DISAPPROVE
>>
>>Additional comments:
>>Text in Scope and Purpose of draft does not match that on the PAR
>>
>>(Minor, for future reference) Incorrect entry in submittal form:
>> Item 4, should be "Computer Society/LMSC
>> Item 5, should be "Computer Society/LMSC"
>
>....(non 802 items edited out)
>
>
>
>>Revision
>....(non 802 items edited out)
>
>
>>P802.3ag/D2.0 (C/LM) Standard for Information Technology -
>>Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and
>>Metropolitan Area Networks - Specific Requirements - Part 3: Carrier Sense
>>Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and
>>Physical Layer Specifications: Maintenance Ballot #6
>>
>>ISSUES
>>substantive changes made to document:
>>Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments:
>>balance of balloting group:
>>patent issues:
>>editorial staff comments:
>>SCC14 comments:
>>legal issues/legal counsel comments:
>>electronic files:
>>title change:
>>draft labeling:
>>
>>DISAPPROVE
>>
>>Additional comments:
>> - The submittal draft does not meet the requirements of the
>> SB-Operations Manual clause 5.5 para 1 and 9.2 para 3. What was
>> submitted was the final balloted text. The revised entire Standard is
>> under preparation by the publications and should be available in time
>> for the REVCOM meeting.
>> - The hoped for Assurance Letter mentioned in my submittal cover letter
>> has not yet appeared. I hope it will show up before the REVCOM meeting
>> and thus avoid major embarrassment.
>....(non 802 items edited out)
>
>>Reaffirmation
>>
>>802.1H-1997 (C/LM) IEEE Recommended Practice for Media Access Control (MAC)
>>Bridging of Ethernet V2.0 in IEEE 802 Local Area Networks
>>
>>ISSUES
>>substantive changes made to document:
>>Sponsor rebuttal to unresolved negative comments:
>>balance of balloting group: One balloter is not categorized, (Rocher)
>>patent issues:
>>editorial staff comments:
>>SCC14 comments:
>>legal issues/legal counsel comments:
>>electronic files:
>>title change:
>>draft labeling:
>>
>>DISAPPROVE
>>
>>Additional comments:
>
>|================================================|
>| Geoffrey O. Thompson |
>| Chair IEEE 802.3 |
>| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S SC5-02 |
>| 4401 Great America Parkway |
>| P. O. Box 58185 |
>| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185 USA |
>| Phone: +1 408 495 1339 |
>| Fax: +1 408 495 5615 |
>| E-Mail: thompson@ieee.org |
>| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at |
>| http://www.ieee802.org/3/index.html
>| To download your FREE copy of Std. IEEE 802.3 |
>| http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.3.html