Re: [802SEC] Kibis in Kauai
Howard,
I support your suggestion of Trial-Use approval. I also think that
your arguments about the lack of real balance (not just formal
balance) on the Balloting Group are your strongest.
As for the technical issues, I think that, when an IEEE Standard
refers to 1 MB, I ought to know unambiguously whether it means
1,048,576 bytes, 1,024,000 bytes, 1,000,000 bytes, or what. I think
the real impact of the standard should be to say that, when we say M,
we mean million. The fact that we have confusion now is, to me, an
indication that we have a problem. I don't know whether 1541 is the
ideal solution or not. The Ballot Group seemed to think so, but maybe
they weren't the right one.
No matter what, we can't have someone outside the ballot group
deciding that, when a draft said M, it really meant something other
than a million. It's clearly out of line for SCC14 to tamper with
balloted drafts, no matter what the issue. That's why SCC14 is given
the opportunity to coordinate during ballot, isn't it?
Roger
P.S. I haven't read the balloted draft, but the 1999 version says
"The use of these prefixes should be restricted to audiences that are
familiar with mathematical notations such as 2^10... They should not
ordinarily appear in the descriptive literature, such as instruction
manuals and labels, that accompanies products sold to the general
public."
>My biggest concern with P1541 is that, unlike many IEEE standards,
>this standard is likely to affect a very broad range of other standards,
>from multiple disciplines. Based on what I have observed regarding
>the enforcement practices concerning IEEE standard units, every new
>and revised standard is going to be rigorously and thoroughly examined
>for compliance with 1541.
>
>There is a case in recent history in which a draft was submitted to RevCom
>for approval, and SCC14 insisted that SI prefixes be replaced with
>the kibi/mebi/gibi equivalents, and suggested that this could be done without
>conducting a recirculation of the draft. RevCom weighed in by saying
>that such a change would require a recirculation, and that since the draft
>had been approved by the ballot group in its current form, it should be
>approved by the Standards Board as submitted. This recommendation
>was upheld by the Standards Board, and then further upheld upon an
>appeal from SCC14. (the final resolution was to put the values in the
>document in expanded form, which was deemed to be an editorial change).
>
>From this case, I worry that with the approval of P1541, sponsors and
>ballot groups will have no recourse, and will have to live with
>kibis/mebis/gibis, etc, and may not even know that their drafts have
>been changed until they see them in published form. Okay, standards
>are standards, and once adopted by the IEEE, other standards should
>conform with their requirements, to the extent the requirements apply.
>But wouldn't you like to have some say in the matter?
>
>1541 will apply to all information technology standards, yet there was
>not one single semiconductor manufacturer, not one single computer or
>communication system manufacturer, not one single mass storage device
>manufacturer, and not one single commercial software developer represented
>in the ballot group for 1541. The draft received a unanimous first round
>approval vote from 15 members of the ballot group of 16 (one did not
>vote), all of whom identified their interest category as Government, Academic,
>General Interest, or User. There was not one single Producer in the ballot
>group. In my four years on RevCom, having looked at hundreds of submittals,
>I can say that it is extremely rare (I can't recall another instance) to have
>none of the ballot pool members identify themselves as Producers.
>
>To me, it boils down to these questions: Are semiconductor manufacturers,
>computer and communication systems manufacturers, mass storage
>manufacturers, commercial software developers, and other IT professionals
>materially effected by P1541? Should their interests have been represented
>in the ballot group? Should they have had the same opportunity to join
>the ballot group as they would have had for any other IEEE-SA standards
>development project?
>
>A secondary concern is that I think there will be a
>strong reaction from standards developers and sponsors if 1541
>is approved, and the level of enforcement that I expect is applied.
>I think that this will look bad for the IEEE-SA, and result in a
>royal mess. I think that there is even the potential for ridicule.
>I believe that the IEEE-SA's procedures include a
>mechanism for dealing with such a reaction, if it occurs, provided
>that P1541 is approved by the Standards Board as a Trial-Use,
>2 year standard.
>
>If approved as a Trial-Use standard, P1541 would be subject
>to comment during the trial period, and I believe that comments
>will be submitted. These comments will then have to be resolved
>by a Working Group, and a new ballot conducted. If materially
>interested parties avail themselves of the opportunity to join
>the ballot group (which the Standards Board must ensure
>is open and well publicized), then consensus will eventually be
>achieved. On the other hand, if I am wrong, and no one cares about
>kibis, then
>no comments will be submitted, and 1541 will be upgraded to a
>Full Use standard without any changes. To me, this seems to
>be a fair and reasonable course of action that is fully within the
>authority of the Standards Board, and is completely appropriate
>for the material contained in P1541.
>
>Howard Frazier
>
>>
>>Roger -
>>
>>I agree the history puts a slightly different slant on this;
>>however, none of this explains why there has been no visible
>>mechanism for joining the balloting pool, nor any encouragement
>>from SCC14 for interested parties to do so at the point when they
>>decided to form a balloting group.
>>
>>So, interesting history lesson, but for me, it doesn't get them off the hook.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>At 09:22 05/11/2002 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>
>>>Howard,
>>>
>>>As background to my comments, I should say that, though I am not
>>>in any way involved in this standards project, I am in favor of it.
>>>
>>>People may misunderstand the history of this project when they
>>>read that the PAR was approved in May 2002. That was a revised
>>>PAR. The original PAR was approved on 8 December 1998. (I just
>>>looked it up.) The draft has been around for a very long time too.
>>>Perhaps that's why the Sponsor Ballot proceeded so quickly.
>>>
>>>This topic has not been a secret. For example, Jim Carlo forwarded
>>>the SEC a coordinating note on this issue almost three years ago:
>>> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg00399.html
>>>Attached to that note was P1541 Draft 2 (dated 1999-12-24)
>>>including virtually the same language as your Slide 2.
>>>
>>>That coordinating note invited comment. I wrote to Bruce Barrow,
>>>and he replied.
>>>
>>>Even earlier, and independently, I wrote to the SEC on this issue
>>>in December 1999:
>>> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg00358.html
>>>with a followup by Vic:
>>> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg00359.html
>>>
>>>My note cited a few other sources, including an August 1999 IEEE
>>>Spectrum article quoting Bruce Barrow:
>>>
>>>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectrum/aug99/departments/tech.html
>>>
>>>as saying "it is unlikely the standard would be adopted before
>>>mid-2000." (Good prognostication!)
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>At 1:13 AM -0800 02/11/05, Howard Frazier wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear IEEE 802 LMSC SEC Members,
>>>>
>>>>I have asked Paul for a brief amount of time to
>>>>make a presentation at the opening plenary
>>>>meeting in Kauai on a subject that will come
>>>>before the IEEE-SA Standards Board in
>>>>December. Attached please find a set of
>>>>slides that will explain the issue.
>>>>
>>>>The topic is important, even though it is
>>>>sometimes hard to discuss it with a straight face.
>>>>I won't have enough time to present all of
>>>>the slides at the plenary, but I plan to cover at
>>>>least the 2nd and 3rd slides, and possibly
>>>>the 4th. The remainder have been included
>>>>to help explain the issue, and hopefully
>>>>stimulate debate.
>>>>
>>>>The Standards Board needs to hear from
>>>>people who have a stake in the subject.
>>>>For reasons outlined in the slide deck, I
>>>>believe that materially interested parties are
>>>>completely unaware of actions that have been
>>>>taken to date, and are not aware of the certain
>>>>impact of IEEE draft standard P1541.
>>>>
>>>>I hope that you will see fit to share this material
>>>>with your working groups, and to elicit their
>>>>feedback. I believe that if the LMSC takes a
>>>>position on this subject, it can have an effect
>>>>on the Standards Board's decision.
>>>>
>>>>Here's the key to the whole thing: Look at
>>>>the "shall" statements on slide 2, and ask yourself
>>>>if all new and revised IEEE standards should have
>>>>to conform to them, because if P1541 becomes
>>>>an IEEE standard, that's what will happen.
>>>>
>>>>Howard Frazier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Attachment converted: TiDrive:kibi.pdf (PDF /CARO) (00130AB2)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony