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

[802SEC] All Emails on Link Security MOTION

Dear SEC members,
 
Attached are all emails on the email ballot to authorize the link security ECSG to become a 802.1 SG. I am resending them to store them in the email archive.
 
Also, I am sending a separate email to the Link Security reflector to inform the participants of the process.
 
Dolors

Approve.

Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:19 PM
> To: Grow, Bob
> Cc: Paul Nikolich; IEEE802; Dolors Sala (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: 
> Authorize the Link
> Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
> 
> 
> 
> I also vote in favour of this motion.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> At 11:13 12/02/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob wrote:
> 
> >I vote in the affirmative. (YEA/APPROVE)
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:05 AM
> >To: IEEE802
> >Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
> >Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
> >Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
> >
> >
> >
> >Dear SEC,
> >
> >This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on 
> the below SEC
> >motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group 
> to become an
> >802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> >
> >The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and 
> closes Friday
> >February 21 2PM EST.
> >
> >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul Nikolich
> >Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> >
> >MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group 
> will become a
> >study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from 
> the start of
> >the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >
> >MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> >SECOND: Bob Grow
> >
> >background material:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> >To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session 
> announcement and
> >update
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might 
> decide the placement
> > > of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this 
> would have the
> > > advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether 
> than might be
> > > available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and 
> would also free
> > > Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
> > >
> > > I would therefore like to make the following motion:
> > >
> > > "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will 
> become a study
> > > group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the 
> start of the
> > > March 802 Plenary meeting."
> > >
> > > I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dolors -
> > > >
> > > >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, 
> which it can do on
> > > >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to 
> the SG to become an
> > > >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should 
> be a formality.
> > > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision 
> to Monday
> >morning
> > > >- I would also prefer this option.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Tony
> > > >
> > > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> > > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday 
> morning and assign
> > > >>someone to run the session.
> > > >>
> > > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the 
> placement of the
> >project
> > > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec 
> meeting if the
> >rules
> > > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the 
> closing exec meeting
> >of
> > > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to 
> Monday, it would
> >help. It
> > > >>would be my preferred option.
> > > >>
> > > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of 
> the meeting
> >because
> > > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with 
> the straw poll,
> >and
> > > >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when 
> we were in
> >session
> > > >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 
> members too. But
> >I'll
> > > >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting 
> to confirm the
> > > >>decision.
> > > >>
> > > >>Dolors
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message -----
> > > >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> > > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> > > >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> > > >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> > > >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning 
> session announcement
> >and
> > > >>update
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> > > >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> > > >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> > > >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> > > >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the 
> SEC meeting.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> > > >> > toes.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Howard
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Dolors-
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> > > >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at 
> least) your proposal
> >is
> > > >> > > approved.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Geoff
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of 
> the project in the
> > > >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The 
> decision was to
> >place
> > > >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the 
> meeting, including
> > > >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of 
> this message.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
> >planning
> > > >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a 
> Link Security
> >session
> > > >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage 
> participation from
> >all
> > > >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information 
> below to your
> > > >> > >> respective WG members.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Thank you,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Dolors
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> ---------
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> > > >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on 
> Monday Morning
> > > >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not 
> conflict with most
> >WG
> > > >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
> >participation
> > > >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group 
> relates to
> >several
> > > >> > >> WGs efforts.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each 
> other on the major
> > > >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, 
> bridging, security),
> > > >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and 
> make progress on
> >the
> > > >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project 
> partitioning and
> >PAR
> > > >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> > > >> > >>
> > >
> > 
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan
> 03/LinkSecWork
> >Pl
> > > >>an_0103.pdf
> > > >> > >> .
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your 
> contribution please send
> >it
> > > >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, 
> dromasca@avaya.com
> > > >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> > > >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please 
> indicate title of
> >the
> > > >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of 
> time needed to
> > > >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of 
> another WG and
> >have
> > > >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> > > >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> -----
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting 
> in Vancouver:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
> >discussion
> > > >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 
> 5 criteria, and
> > > >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the 
> project and the
> > > >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also 
> discussed the location
> >and
> > > >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Major decisions made:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive 
> committee in the next
> > > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the 
> project in 802.1
> > > >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be 
> co-located with
> >EFM
> > > >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by 
> Nortel late May
> >early
> > > >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
> >10GBASE-T
> > > >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> > > >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> > > >> > >>
> > >
> > 
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan
> 03/LinkSecUsag
> >eC
> > > >>ases_0103.pdf
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
> >identified.
> > > >> > >>       See
> > > >> > >>
> > >
> > 
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan
> 03/LinkSecWork
> >Pl
> > > >>an_0103.pdf
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared 
> for next plenary
> > > >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the 
> three major
> >areas
> > > >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are 
> Bridging, EPON and
> > > >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
> >tutorials
> > > >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com 
> <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
> >to
> > > >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> > > >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> > > >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
> >organize
> > > >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> > > >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
> ><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> > > >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> > > >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for 
> development of the
> > > >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Yes - 36
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> No - 0
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > > >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Yes - 26
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Negative - 0
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Abstain - 12
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Tony
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> 



Dear SEC members,

I may be able to provide additional inside on this decision. I think it is
important that all SEC members feel comfortable in making the decision at
this time. Please note that I am not a voting member.

The group has spent many months trying to reach a conclusion in this topic
and now that it has been made it is important to move forward. In my opinion
it is only a matter of formalizing it with the SEC approval, and hence it is
the SEC turn to evaluate the decision. Based on this, I was not planning to
allocate more time for this topic in the meeting agenda. I think this is the
real advantage of making the decision. It allows to leave this topic behind
us one meeting "ahead".

I think this should not be looked as an exception to the rules but a way of
recognizing a decision already made. I have no reason to believe that this
vote is not representative. Hence I believe it is not appropriate for me to
take another vote unless some information is brought back to the group (such
as a request by the SEC to do so).

Therefore, the information provided by the group in the closing SEC plenary
would be the same than now. So the only difference could be how people (who
did not attend the interim meeting) can provide feedback for this decision.
With an email ballot, they can follow the process by email and provide
feedback the same way. Making the decision in the plenary meeting they will
need to be physically there. So in a way an email ballot could be considered
more open. The problem is that the email archive is not working right now.
But it is in the process of being fixed. And I assume there will be plenty
of time to provide feedback before the motion closes. I am planning to send
a note to the reflector as soon the archive is operational. It makes little
sense to announce it now if it cannot be monitored. I can do so if you feel
this is better. I did mention it on Tuesday in our weekly call. But there
was few people this time. But minutes of the call are already out.

Overall, I agree with Tony in saying that it is important for the SG that
the SEC evaluates the SG recommendation of placing the SG in 802.1, and
provides feedback to the SG in case the recommendation cannot be approved at
this time.

I'll be happy to provide more information or take any action that can help
the SEC members feel comfortable with the decision. Please suggest.

Thanks,

Dolors

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rigsbee, Everett O" <everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>
To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; "Roger B. Marks"
<r.b.marks@ieee.org>; "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:21 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group



Paul,  Not sure I agree with you on that.  All of the discussion which I've
seen thus far has been about the appropriateness of doing this in advance by
email.  I've seen no one who didn't think this was the right thing to do;
just folks who question why we're not following our normal procedures.  In
this particular case the exception make sense to me, but clearly not
everyone feels the same on this.

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98324-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:46 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


Tony,

You are correct in the interpretation of the reason I suggested to Dolors
that she ask you to consider making this motion via email as opposed to
waiting until the Monday SEC meeting:
- an email motion would allow more time for debate than if was limited to 5
minutes during the Monday SEC meeting.

As we can all see by the debate that has ensued, making the motion via email
clearly was the right thing to do.

--Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


>
> At 13:59 12/02/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
> >I vote Disapprove.
> >
> >I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion takes
> >effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. In between,
> >we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is eligible to vote. So
> >the effect of the motion is small.
>
> Roger -
>
> If you trace back the history of this (and most of it is attached below),
> there was a suggestion from Howard to bring the decision on placement of
> the SG forward to the Monday AM exec, the advantage being that Dolors
would
> not then have to hang around till Friday just to get the decision approved
> by the SEC.
>
> Given that Monday SEC meetings are generally tight on time, Paul suggested
> (to Dolors) that it might give more opportunity/time for discussion if we
> made the decision via an Email motion. Hence this motion.
>
>
> >I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending the
> >Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair of an
ECSG
> >decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.
>
> That is the second advantage, but I believe not the one that caused Paul
to
> suggest this procedure (see above). Correct me if I am wrong, Paul.
>
>
> >I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue that
> >the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a Plenary session
> >to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has been strongly in favor of
> >the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to have the SG confirm this decision
> >in Dallas.
>
> Again, if you re-read the history in this Email, you will be reminded that
> in November, 802.1 made the offer for the Security SG to become an 802.1
> SG, and at their January interim meeting, the Security SG voted to be
> placed in 802.1. I don't believe any guns are being jumped here.
>
>
> >Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly outweighs
> >its advantage.
>
> Can you clarify for me whether your vote represents a disapproval of the
> placement of the SG in 802.1, or a disapproval based on the slight
> disadvantage you perceive in making the motion? If the latter, then I
would
> personally very much welcome hearing your view on the issue of placement,
> which is the issue at hand.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >>Dear SEC,
> >>
> >>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below
SEC
> >>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
> >>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> >>
> >>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
> >>February 21 2PM EST.
> >>
> >>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul Nikolich
> >>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> >>
> >>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become
a
> >>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start
of
> >>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >>
> >>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> >>SECOND: Bob Grow
> >>
> >>background material:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> >>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
> >>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have
the
> >>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might
be
> >>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also
free
> >>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
> >>>
> >>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
> >>>
> >>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
> >>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the
> >>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >>>
> >>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Tony
> >>>
> >>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  >Dolors -
> >>>  >
> >>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can
do on
> >>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
> >>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
> >>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
> >>morning
> >>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >Regards,
> >>  > >Tony
> >>  > >
> >>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and
> >> assign
> >>  > >>someone to run the session.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of
the
> >>project
> >>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if
the
> >>rules
> >>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
> >>of
> >>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it
would
> >>help. It
> >>  > >>would be my preferred option.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
> >>because
> >>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw
poll,
> >>and
> >>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
> >>session
> >>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too.
But
> >>I'll
> >>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm
the
> >>>  >>decision.
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >>Dolors
> >>  > >>
> >>>  >>----- Original Message -----
> >>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
> >>and
> >>>  >>update
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >>>  >> > toes.
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Howard
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > > Dolors-
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
> >>is
> >>>  >> > > approved.
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > Geoff
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project
in the
> >>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
> >>place
> >>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
> >>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
> >>planning
> >>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
> >>session
> >>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation
from
> >>all
> >>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Thank you,
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Dolors
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> ---------
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with
most
> >>WG
> >>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
> >>participation
> >>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
> >>several
> >>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the
major
> >>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress
on
> >>the
> >>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning
and
> >>PAR
> >>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWo
rk
> >>Pl
> >>>  >>an_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >> .
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please
send
> >>it
> >>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate
title of
> >>the
> >>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed
to
> >>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG
and
> >>have
> >>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> -----
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
> >>discussion
> >>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria,
and
> >>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and
the
> >>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
> >>and
> >>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >>  > >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the
next
> >>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located
with
> >>EFM
> >>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late
May
> >>early
> >>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
> >>10GBASE-T
> >>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUs
ag
> >>eC
> >>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
> >>identified.
> >>>  >> > >>       See
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWo
rk
> >>Pl
> >>>  >>an_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
> >>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
> >>areas
> >>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON
and
> >>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
> >>tutorials
> >>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
> >>to
> >>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
> >>organize
> >>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
> >><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development
of the
> >>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> No - 0
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >
> >>>  >Regards,
> >>>  >Tony
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Tony
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>





Paul,  Not sure I agree with you on that.  All of the discussion which I've seen thus far has been about the appropriateness of doing this in advance by email.  I've seen no one who didn't think this was the right thing to do; just folks who question why we're not following our normal procedures.  In this particular case the exception make sense to me, but clearly not everyone feels the same on this.  

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98324-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:46 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


Tony,

You are correct in the interpretation of the reason I suggested to Dolors
that she ask you to consider making this motion via email as opposed to
waiting until the Monday SEC meeting:
- an email motion would allow more time for debate than if was limited to 5
minutes during the Monday SEC meeting.

As we can all see by the debate that has ensued, making the motion via email
clearly was the right thing to do.

--Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


>
> At 13:59 12/02/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
> >I vote Disapprove.
> >
> >I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion takes
> >effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. In between,
> >we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is eligible to vote. So
> >the effect of the motion is small.
>
> Roger -
>
> If you trace back the history of this (and most of it is attached below),
> there was a suggestion from Howard to bring the decision on placement of
> the SG forward to the Monday AM exec, the advantage being that Dolors
would
> not then have to hang around till Friday just to get the decision approved
> by the SEC.
>
> Given that Monday SEC meetings are generally tight on time, Paul suggested
> (to Dolors) that it might give more opportunity/time for discussion if we
> made the decision via an Email motion. Hence this motion.
>
>
> >I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending the
> >Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair of an
ECSG
> >decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.
>
> That is the second advantage, but I believe not the one that caused Paul
to
> suggest this procedure (see above). Correct me if I am wrong, Paul.
>
>
> >I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue that
> >the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a Plenary session
> >to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has been strongly in favor of
> >the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to have the SG confirm this decision
> >in Dallas.
>
> Again, if you re-read the history in this Email, you will be reminded that
> in November, 802.1 made the offer for the Security SG to become an 802.1
> SG, and at their January interim meeting, the Security SG voted to be
> placed in 802.1. I don't believe any guns are being jumped here.
>
>
> >Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly outweighs
> >its advantage.
>
> Can you clarify for me whether your vote represents a disapproval of the
> placement of the SG in 802.1, or a disapproval based on the slight
> disadvantage you perceive in making the motion? If the latter, then I
would
> personally very much welcome hearing your view on the issue of placement,
> which is the issue at hand.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >>Dear SEC,
> >>
> >>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below
SEC
> >>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
> >>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> >>
> >>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
> >>February 21 2PM EST.
> >>
> >>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul Nikolich
> >>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> >>
> >>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become
a
> >>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start
of
> >>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >>
> >>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> >>SECOND: Bob Grow
> >>
> >>background material:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> >>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
> >>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have
the
> >>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might
be
> >>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also
free
> >>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
> >>>
> >>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
> >>>
> >>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
> >>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the
> >>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >>>
> >>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Tony
> >>>
> >>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  >Dolors -
> >>>  >
> >>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can
do on
> >>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
> >>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
> >>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
> >>morning
> >>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >Regards,
> >>  > >Tony
> >>  > >
> >>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and
> >> assign
> >>  > >>someone to run the session.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of
the
> >>project
> >>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if
the
> >>rules
> >>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
> >>of
> >>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it
would
> >>help. It
> >>  > >>would be my preferred option.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
> >>because
> >>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw
poll,
> >>and
> >>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
> >>session
> >>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too.
But
> >>I'll
> >>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm
the
> >>>  >>decision.
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >>Dolors
> >>  > >>
> >>>  >>----- Original Message -----
> >>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
> >>and
> >>>  >>update
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >>>  >> > toes.
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Howard
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > > Dolors-
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
> >>is
> >>>  >> > > approved.
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > Geoff
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project
in the
> >>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
> >>place
> >>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
> >>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
> >>planning
> >>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
> >>session
> >>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation
from
> >>all
> >>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Thank you,
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Dolors
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> ---------
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with
most
> >>WG
> >>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
> >>participation
> >>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
> >>several
> >>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the
major
> >>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress
on
> >>the
> >>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning
and
> >>PAR
> >>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWo
rk
> >>Pl
> >>>  >>an_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >> .
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please
send
> >>it
> >>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate
title of
> >>the
> >>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed
to
> >>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG
and
> >>have
> >>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> -----
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
> >>discussion
> >>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria,
and
> >>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and
the
> >>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
> >>and
> >>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >>  > >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the
next
> >>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located
with
> >>EFM
> >>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late
May
> >>early
> >>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
> >>10GBASE-T
> >>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUs
ag
> >>eC
> >>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
> >>identified.
> >>>  >> > >>       See
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWo
rk
> >>Pl
> >>>  >>an_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
> >>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
> >>areas
> >>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON
and
> >>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
> >>tutorials
> >>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
> >>to
> >>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
> >>organize
> >>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
> >><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development
of the
> >>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> No - 0
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >
> >>>  >Regards,
> >>>  >Tony
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Tony
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>




Tony,

You are correct in the interpretation of the reason I suggested to Dolors
that she ask you to consider making this motion via email as opposed to
waiting until the Monday SEC meeting:
- an email motion would allow more time for debate than if was limited to 5
minutes during the Monday SEC meeting.

As we can all see by the debate that has ensued, making the motion via email
clearly was the right thing to do.

--Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


>
> At 13:59 12/02/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
> >I vote Disapprove.
> >
> >I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion takes
> >effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. In between,
> >we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is eligible to vote. So
> >the effect of the motion is small.
>
> Roger -
>
> If you trace back the history of this (and most of it is attached below),
> there was a suggestion from Howard to bring the decision on placement of
> the SG forward to the Monday AM exec, the advantage being that Dolors
would
> not then have to hang around till Friday just to get the decision approved
> by the SEC.
>
> Given that Monday SEC meetings are generally tight on time, Paul suggested
> (to Dolors) that it might give more opportunity/time for discussion if we
> made the decision via an Email motion. Hence this motion.
>
>
> >I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending the
> >Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair of an
ECSG
> >decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.
>
> That is the second advantage, but I believe not the one that caused Paul
to
> suggest this procedure (see above). Correct me if I am wrong, Paul.
>
>
> >I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue that
> >the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a Plenary session
> >to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has been strongly in favor of
> >the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to have the SG confirm this decision
> >in Dallas.
>
> Again, if you re-read the history in this Email, you will be reminded that
> in November, 802.1 made the offer for the Security SG to become an 802.1
> SG, and at their January interim meeting, the Security SG voted to be
> placed in 802.1. I don't believe any guns are being jumped here.
>
>
> >Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly outweighs
> >its advantage.
>
> Can you clarify for me whether your vote represents a disapproval of the
> placement of the SG in 802.1, or a disapproval based on the slight
> disadvantage you perceive in making the motion? If the latter, then I
would
> personally very much welcome hearing your view on the issue of placement,
> which is the issue at hand.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >>Dear SEC,
> >>
> >>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below
SEC
> >>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
> >>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> >>
> >>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
> >>February 21 2PM EST.
> >>
> >>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul Nikolich
> >>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> >>
> >>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become
a
> >>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start
of
> >>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >>
> >>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> >>SECOND: Bob Grow
> >>
> >>background material:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> >>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
> >>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have
the
> >>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might
be
> >>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also
free
> >>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
> >>>
> >>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
> >>>
> >>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
> >>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the
> >>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >>>
> >>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Tony
> >>>
> >>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  >Dolors -
> >>>  >
> >>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can
do on
> >>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
> >>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
> >>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
> >>morning
> >>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >Regards,
> >>  > >Tony
> >>  > >
> >>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and
> >> assign
> >>  > >>someone to run the session.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of
the
> >>project
> >>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if
the
> >>rules
> >>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
> >>of
> >>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it
would
> >>help. It
> >>  > >>would be my preferred option.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
> >>because
> >>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw
poll,
> >>and
> >>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
> >>session
> >>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too.
But
> >>I'll
> >>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm
the
> >>>  >>decision.
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >>Dolors
> >>  > >>
> >>>  >>----- Original Message -----
> >>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
> >>and
> >>>  >>update
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >>>  >> > toes.
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Howard
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > > Dolors-
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
> >>is
> >>>  >> > > approved.
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > Geoff
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project
in the
> >>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
> >>place
> >>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
> >>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
> >>planning
> >>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
> >>session
> >>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation
from
> >>all
> >>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Thank you,
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Dolors
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> ---------
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with
most
> >>WG
> >>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
> >>participation
> >>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
> >>several
> >>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the
major
> >>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress
on
> >>the
> >>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning
and
> >>PAR
> >>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWo
rk
> >>Pl
> >>>  >>an_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >> .
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please
send
> >>it
> >>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate
title of
> >>the
> >>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed
to
> >>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG
and
> >>have
> >>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> -----
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
> >>discussion
> >>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria,
and
> >>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and
the
> >>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
> >>and
> >>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >>  > >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the
next
> >>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located
with
> >>EFM
> >>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late
May
> >>early
> >>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
> >>10GBASE-T
> >>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUs
ag
> >>eC
> >>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
> >>identified.
> >>>  >> > >>       See
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>
>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWo
rk
> >>Pl
> >>>  >>an_0103.pdf
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
> >>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
> >>areas
> >>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON
and
> >>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
> >>tutorials
> >>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
> >>to
> >>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
> >>organize
> >>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
> >><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development
of the
> >>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> No - 0
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
> >>>  >> > >>
> >>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >>>  >> > >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >
> >>>  >Regards,
> >>>  >Tony
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Tony
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>



I vote APPROVE.

wlq

Paul Nikolich wrote:
> 
> Dear SEC,
> 
> This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
> motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
> 802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> 
> The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
> February 21 2PM EST.
> 
> Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --Paul Nikolich
> Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> 
> MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
> study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
> the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
> 
> MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> SECOND: Bob Grow
> 
> background material:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
> update
> 
> >
> > Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
> > of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
> > advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
> > available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> > Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
> >
> > I would therefore like to make the following motion:
> >
> > "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
> > group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> > March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >
> > I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >
> > >Dolors -
> > >
> > >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
> > >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
> > >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
> > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
> morning
> > >- I would also prefer this option.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
> > >>someone to run the session.
> > >>
> > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
> project
> > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
> rules
> > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
> of
> > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
> help. It
> > >>would be my preferred option.
> > >>
> > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
> because
> > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
> and
> > >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
> session
> > >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
> I'll
> > >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
> > >>decision.
> > >>
> > >>Dolors
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> > >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> > >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> > >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
> and
> > >>update
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> > >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> > >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> > >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> > >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> > >> >
> > >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> > >> > toes.
> > >> >
> > >> > Howard
> > >> >
> > >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Dolors-
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> > >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
> is
> > >> > > approved.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Geoff
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
> > >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
> place
> > >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
> > >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
> planning
> > >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
> session
> > >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
> all
> > >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> > >> > >> respective WG members.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Thank you,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Dolors
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> ---------
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> > >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> > >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
> WG
> > >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
> participation
> > >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
> several
> > >> > >> WGs efforts.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
> > >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> > >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
> the
> > >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
> PAR
> > >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> > >> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
> Pl
> > >>an_0103.pdf
> > >> > >> .
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
> it
> > >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> > >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> > >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
> the
> > >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
> > >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
> have
> > >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> > >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -----
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
> discussion
> > >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
> > >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
> > >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
> and
> > >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Major decisions made:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
> > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> > >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
> EFM
> > >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
> early
> > >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
> 10GBASE-T
> > >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> > >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> > >> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
> eC
> > >>ases_0103.pdf
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
> identified.
> > >> > >>       See
> > >> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
> Pl
> > >>an_0103.pdf
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
> > >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
> areas
> > >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
> > >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
> tutorials
> > >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
> to
> > >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> > >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> > >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
> organize
> > >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> > >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
> <mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> > >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> > >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
> > >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Yes - 36
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> No - 0
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Yes - 26
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Negative - 0
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Abstain - 12
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >


Bob -

This motion is not out of order.

1) The exact wording of the motion is, as stated in the November minutes:

"5.45 MI Establishment of ECSG on Link Security - Grow 10 04:04 PM
Moved: to approve formation of an SEC study group on link security."

2) Our own operating rules have this to say on the duration of study groups (from section 5.3):

"The Study Group shall have a defined task with specific output and a specific time frame established
within which they are allowed to study the subject. It is expected that the work effort to develop a PAR
will originate in a ECSG or WGSG. A Study Group shall report its recommendations, shall have a
limited lifetime, and is chartered meeting-to-meeting. After the Study Group recommendation(s) has
been accepted by the parent body, the Study Group will be disbanded no later than the end of the next
Plenary Session."

The motion is silent on the issue of the time frame of the SG.

Our own rules simply state that an SG is chartered meeting-to-meeting, and will be disbanded no later than the end of the next Plenary after its recommendations are accepted.

I see no procedural impediment to the motion on the table.

I would therefore respectfully request that we get on with considering the question that the SG has asked us to address.

Regards,
Tony


At 14:47 12/02/2003 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:

I ask the chair to rule this motion out of order, in that it is in
direct conflict with the motion passed by the SEC at its November
session that chartered the executive committee study group through March
14, 2003.

If the mover and seconder wish to continue with this motion under proper
procedures, they should first move to reconsider the motion passed in
November granting the charter of the ECSG.  Then, prevailing on that
motion, the original motion can be amended to terminate the ECSG
existence on March 10, 2003 at 8:00am CST.  Prevailing on the amendment
and the amended motion, the motion that is the subject of this email can
then be properly submitted.

Failing that, I vote DISAPPROVE.

Roger has made some valid points.  There is no advantage that I can see
at this point to terminating what is our normal procedure of allowing
the ECSG to return to the SEC with a motion on its own disposition at
the end of its current charter.  This guarantees that the most open and
inclusive process has been followed to arrive at the decision on
placement of this SG.  There is also no disadvantage, that I can see, to
allowing the ECSG to continue to meet under as it is presently
constituted, through the end of the March session.

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:05 AM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group



Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below
SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become
a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start
of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have
the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might
be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can
do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and
assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw
poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too.
But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm
the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in
the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation
from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with
most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the
major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress
on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning
and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Work
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please
send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title
of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed
to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG
and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria,
and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and
the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the
next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located
with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late
May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Usag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Work
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON
and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of
the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>

Regards,
Tony




Roger,

It's your vote, but IMOH, given how crowded the agenda is getting for
Monday, if we can get it decided early to get it off the agenda I think
there is sufficient merit to make and support the motion.  Especially
since I have heard no arguments to keep the group as an SEC SG my vote
is to clear it out now.  My vote might change if I heard opinions that
it should be kept as the SEC level.

Mat 

Matthew Sherman 
Vice Chair, IEEE 802 
Technology Consultant 
Communications Technology Research 
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory 
Room B255, Building 103 
180 Park Avenue 
P.O. Box 971 
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877 
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:09 PM
To: Tony Jeffree
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


Tony,

I have no strong views on whether or not the Study Group belongs in 
802.1. I just think that, since it expires on March 14 and has not 
yet submitted a PAR, we will be hearing a motion on March 14 to 
extend the Study Group for another four months. The motion we get 
will (I expect) be proposed by the SG, and it will recommend 
placement in either 802.1 or at the SEC level. Fine.

At this point, I would prefer to let the SG finish out its initial 
four-month term the way we chartered it. I don't think this would 
affect the Study Group activities in any significant way. However, I 
think there is a possibility that some participants (especially those 
who missed the interim meeting) would feel more a part of the 
decision-making process if the decision were left until the more 
natural time to make it.

I'm not jumping up and down about this issue. I'm just voting my
opinion.

Roger


At 9:38 PM +0000 03/02/12, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>At 13:59 12/02/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
>>I vote Disapprove.
>>
>>I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion 
>>takes effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. 
>>In between, we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is 
>>eligible to vote. So the effect of the motion is small.
>
>Roger -
>
>If you trace back the history of this (and most of it is attached 
>below), there was a suggestion from Howard to bring the decision on 
>placement of the SG forward to the Monday AM exec, the advantage 
>being that Dolors would not then have to hang around till Friday 
>just to get the decision approved by the SEC.
>
>Given that Monday SEC meetings are generally tight on time, Paul 
>suggested (to Dolors) that it might give more opportunity/time for 
>discussion if we made the decision via an Email motion. Hence this 
>motion.
>
>>I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending 
>>the Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair 
>>of an ECSG decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.
>
>That is the second advantage, but I believe not the one that caused 
>Paul to suggest this procedure (see above). Correct me if I am 
>wrong, Paul.
>
>>I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue 
>>that the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a 
>>Plenary session to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has 
>>been strongly in favor of the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to 
>>have the SG confirm this decision in Dallas.
>
>Again, if you re-read the history in this Email, you will be 
>reminded that in November, 802.1 made the offer for the Security SG 
>to become an 802.1 SG, and at their January interim meeting, the 
>Security SG voted to be placed in 802.1. I don't believe any guns 
>are being jumped here.
>
>>Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly 
>>outweighs its advantage.
>
>Can you clarify for me whether your vote represents a disapproval of 
>the placement of the SG in 802.1, or a disapproval based on the 
>slight disadvantage you perceive in making the motion? If the 
>latter, then I would personally very much welcome hearing your view 
>on the issue of placement, which is the issue at hand.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>>Roger
>>
>>>Dear SEC,
>>>
>>>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the
below SEC
>>>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become
an
>>>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
>>>
>>>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
>>>February 21 2PM EST.
>>>
>>>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>--Paul Nikolich
>>>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
>>>
>>>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will
become a
>>>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the
start of
>>>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>>
>>>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
>>>SECOND: Bob Grow
>>>
>>>background material:
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>>>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement and
>>>update
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
>>>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would
have the
>>>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than
might be
>>>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also
free
>>>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>>>>
>>>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>>>>
>>>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
>>>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the
>>>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>>>
>>>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>>>>
>>>>  Regards,
>>>>  Tony
>>>>
>>>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  >Dolors -
>>>>  >
>>>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it
can do on
>>>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
>>>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
>>>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to
Monday
>>>morning
>>>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
>>>  > >
>>>  > >Regards,
>>>  > >Tony
>>>  > >
>>>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
>>>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning 
>>>and assign
>>>  > >>someone to run the session.
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement
of the
>>>project
>>>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if
the
>>>rules
>>>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
>>>of
>>>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it
would
>>>help. It
>>>  > >>would be my preferred option.
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the
meeting
>>>because
>>>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the
straw poll,
>>>and
>>>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were
in
>>>session
>>>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members
too. But
>>>I'll
>>>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to
confirm the
>>>>  >>decision.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>Dolors
>>>  > >>
>>>>  >>----- Original Message -----
>>>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
>>>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
>>>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
>>>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
>>>and
>>>>  >>update
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
>>>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
>>>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
>>>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
>>>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC
meeting.
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
>>>>  >> > toes.
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > Howard
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > > Dolors-
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
>>>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
>>>is
>>>>  >> > > approved.
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > > Geoff
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the
project in the
>>>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was
to
>>>place
>>>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
>>>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this
message.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
>>>planning
>>>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link
Security
>>>session
>>>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage
participation from
>>>all
>>>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to
your
>>>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Thank you,
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Dolors
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> ---------
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
>>>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday
Morning
>>>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict
with most
>>>WG
>>>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
>>>participation
>>>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates
to
>>>several
>>>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on
the major
>>>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging,
security),
>>>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make
progress on
>>>the
>>>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project
partitioning and
>>>PAR
>>>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/Link
SecWork
>>>Pl
>>>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>>>  >> > >> .
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution
please send
>>>it
>>>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org,
dromasca@avaya.com
>>>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
>>>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate
title of
>>>the
>>>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time
needed to
>>>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another
WG and
>>>have
>>>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
>>>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> -----
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
>>>discussion
>>>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5
criteria, and
>>>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project
and the
>>>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
>>>and
>>>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
>>>  > >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in
the next
>>>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in
802.1
>>>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be
co-located with
>>>EFM
>>>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel
late May
>>>early
>>>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
>>>10GBASE-T
>>>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
>>>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/Link
SecUsag
>>>eC
>>>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
>>>identified.
>>>>  >> > >>       See
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/Link
SecWork
>>>Pl
>>>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
>>>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three
major
>>>areas
>>>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging,
EPON and
>>>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
>>>tutorials
>>>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
>>>to
>>>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
>>>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
>>>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
>>>organize
>>>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
>>>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
>>><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
>>>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
>>>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for
development of the
>>>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> No - 0
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Regards,
>>>>  >Tony
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>  Regards,
>>>>  Tony
>
>Regards,
>Tony



I ask the chair to rule this motion out of order, in that it is in
direct conflict with the motion passed by the SEC at its November
session that chartered the executive committee study group through March
14, 2003.

If the mover and seconder wish to continue with this motion under proper
procedures, they should first move to reconsider the motion passed in
November granting the charter of the ECSG.  Then, prevailing on that
motion, the original motion can be amended to terminate the ECSG
existence on March 10, 2003 at 8:00am CST.  Prevailing on the amendment
and the amended motion, the motion that is the subject of this email can
then be properly submitted.

Failing that, I vote DISAPPROVE.

Roger has made some valid points.  There is no advantage that I can see
at this point to terminating what is our normal procedure of allowing
the ECSG to return to the SEC with a motion on its own disposition at
the end of its current charter.  This guarantees that the most open and
inclusive process has been followed to arrive at the decision on
placement of this SG.  There is also no disadvantage, that I can see, to
allowing the ECSG to continue to meet under as it is presently
constituted, through the end of the March session.

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:05 AM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group



Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below
SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become
a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start
of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have
the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might
be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can
do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and
assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw
poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too.
But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm
the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in
the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation
from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with
most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the
major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress
on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning
and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Work
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please
send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title
of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed
to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG
and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria,
and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and
the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the
next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located
with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late
May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Usag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Work
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON
and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of
the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>




Colleagues,  This makes perfect sense to me, and I vote to Approve the motion.  

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98324-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:05 AM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>




Tony,

I have no strong views on whether or not the Study Group belongs in 
802.1. I just think that, since it expires on March 14 and has not 
yet submitted a PAR, we will be hearing a motion on March 14 to 
extend the Study Group for another four months. The motion we get 
will (I expect) be proposed by the SG, and it will recommend 
placement in either 802.1 or at the SEC level. Fine.

At this point, I would prefer to let the SG finish out its initial 
four-month term the way we chartered it. I don't think this would 
affect the Study Group activities in any significant way. However, I 
think there is a possibility that some participants (especially those 
who missed the interim meeting) would feel more a part of the 
decision-making process if the decision were left until the more 
natural time to make it.

I'm not jumping up and down about this issue. I'm just voting my opinion.

Roger


At 9:38 PM +0000 03/02/12, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>At 13:59 12/02/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
>>I vote Disapprove.
>>
>>I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion 
>>takes effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. 
>>In between, we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is 
>>eligible to vote. So the effect of the motion is small.
>
>Roger -
>
>If you trace back the history of this (and most of it is attached 
>below), there was a suggestion from Howard to bring the decision on 
>placement of the SG forward to the Monday AM exec, the advantage 
>being that Dolors would not then have to hang around till Friday 
>just to get the decision approved by the SEC.
>
>Given that Monday SEC meetings are generally tight on time, Paul 
>suggested (to Dolors) that it might give more opportunity/time for 
>discussion if we made the decision via an Email motion. Hence this 
>motion.
>
>>I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending 
>>the Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair 
>>of an ECSG decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.
>
>That is the second advantage, but I believe not the one that caused 
>Paul to suggest this procedure (see above). Correct me if I am 
>wrong, Paul.
>
>>I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue 
>>that the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a 
>>Plenary session to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has 
>>been strongly in favor of the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to 
>>have the SG confirm this decision in Dallas.
>
>Again, if you re-read the history in this Email, you will be 
>reminded that in November, 802.1 made the offer for the Security SG 
>to become an 802.1 SG, and at their January interim meeting, the 
>Security SG voted to be placed in 802.1. I don't believe any guns 
>are being jumped here.
>
>>Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly 
>>outweighs its advantage.
>
>Can you clarify for me whether your vote represents a disapproval of 
>the placement of the SG in 802.1, or a disapproval based on the 
>slight disadvantage you perceive in making the motion? If the 
>latter, then I would personally very much welcome hearing your view 
>on the issue of placement, which is the issue at hand.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>>Roger
>>
>>>Dear SEC,
>>>
>>>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
>>>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
>>>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
>>>
>>>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
>>>February 21 2PM EST.
>>>
>>>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>--Paul Nikolich
>>>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
>>>
>>>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
>>>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
>>>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>>
>>>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
>>>SECOND: Bob Grow
>>>
>>>background material:
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>>>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
>>>update
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
>>>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
>>>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
>>>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
>>>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>>>>
>>>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>>>>
>>>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
>>>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
>>>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>>>
>>>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>>>>
>>>>  Regards,
>>>>  Tony
>>>>
>>>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  >Dolors -
>>>>  >
>>>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
>>>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
>>>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
>>>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
>>>morning
>>>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
>>>  > >
>>>  > >Regards,
>>>  > >Tony
>>>  > >
>>>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
>>>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning 
>>>and assign
>>>  > >>someone to run the session.
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
>>>project
>>>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
>>>rules
>>>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
>>>of
>>>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
>>>help. It
>>>  > >>would be my preferred option.
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
>>>because
>>>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
>>>and
>>>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
>>>session
>>>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
>>>I'll
>>>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
>>>>  >>decision.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>Dolors
>>>  > >>
>>>>  >>----- Original Message -----
>>>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
>>>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
>>>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
>>>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
>>>and
>>>>  >>update
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
>>>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
>>>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
>>>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
>>>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
>>>>  >> > toes.
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > Howard
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > > Dolors-
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
>>>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
>>>is
>>>>  >> > > approved.
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > > Geoff
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
>>>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
>>>place
>>>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
>>>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
>>>planning
>>>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
>>>session
>>>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
>>>all
>>>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
>>>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Thank you,
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Dolors
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> ---------
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
>>>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
>>>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
>>>WG
>>>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
>>>participation
>>>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
>>>several
>>>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
>>>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
>>>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
>>>the
>>>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
>>>PAR
>>>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>>>Pl
>>>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>>>  >> > >> .
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
>>>it
>>>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
>>>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
>>>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
>>>the
>>>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
>>>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
>>>have
>>>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
>>>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> -----
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
>>>discussion
>>>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
>>>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
>>>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
>>>and
>>>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
>>>  > >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
>>>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
>>>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
>>>EFM
>>>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
>>>early
>>>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
>>>10GBASE-T
>>>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
>>>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
>>>eC
>>>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
>>>identified.
>>>>  >> > >>       See
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>>>Pl
>>>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
>>>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
>>>areas
>>>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
>>>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
>>>tutorials
>>>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
>>>to
>>>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
>>>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
>>>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
>>>organize
>>>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
>>>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
>>><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
>>>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
>>>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
>>>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> No - 0
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
>>>>  >> > >>
>>>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
>>>>  >> > >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Regards,
>>>>  >Tony
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>  Regards,
>>>>  Tony
>
>Regards,
>Tony




At 13:59 12/02/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:

>I vote Disapprove.
>
>I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion takes 
>effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. In between, 
>we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is eligible to vote. So 
>the effect of the motion is small.

Roger -

If you trace back the history of this (and most of it is attached below), 
there was a suggestion from Howard to bring the decision on placement of 
the SG forward to the Monday AM exec, the advantage being that Dolors would 
not then have to hang around till Friday just to get the decision approved 
by the SEC.

Given that Monday SEC meetings are generally tight on time, Paul suggested 
(to Dolors) that it might give more opportunity/time for discussion if we 
made the decision via an Email motion. Hence this motion.


>I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending the 
>Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair of an ECSG 
>decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.

That is the second advantage, but I believe not the one that caused Paul to 
suggest this procedure (see above). Correct me if I am wrong, Paul.


>I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue that 
>the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a Plenary session 
>to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has been strongly in favor of 
>the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to have the SG confirm this decision 
>in Dallas.

Again, if you re-read the history in this Email, you will be reminded that 
in November, 802.1 made the offer for the Security SG to become an 802.1 
SG, and at their January interim meeting, the Security SG voted to be 
placed in 802.1. I don't believe any guns are being jumped here.


>Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly outweighs 
>its advantage.

Can you clarify for me whether your vote represents a disapproval of the 
placement of the SG in 802.1, or a disapproval based on the slight 
disadvantage you perceive in making the motion? If the latter, then I would 
personally very much welcome hearing your view on the issue of placement, 
which is the issue at hand.

Regards,
Tony


>Roger
>
>
>>Dear SEC,
>>
>>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
>>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
>>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
>>
>>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
>>February 21 2PM EST.
>>
>>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--Paul Nikolich
>>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
>>
>>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
>>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
>>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>
>>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
>>SECOND: Bob Grow
>>
>>background material:
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
>>update
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
>>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
>>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
>>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
>>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>>>
>>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>>>
>>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
>>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
>>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>>
>>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>>>
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Tony
>>>
>>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>>
>>>  >Dolors -
>>>  >
>>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
>>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
>>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
>>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
>>morning
>>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
>>  > >
>>  > >Regards,
>>  > >Tony
>>  > >
>>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
>>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and 
>> assign
>>  > >>someone to run the session.
>>  > >>
>>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
>>project
>>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
>>rules
>>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
>>of
>>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
>>help. It
>>  > >>would be my preferred option.
>>  > >>
>>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
>>because
>>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
>>and
>>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
>>session
>>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
>>I'll
>>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
>>>  >>decision.
>>>  >>
>>>  >>Dolors
>>  > >>
>>>  >>----- Original Message -----
>>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
>>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
>>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
>>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
>>and
>>>  >>update
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
>>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
>>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
>>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
>>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
>>>  >> > toes.
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > Howard
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > > Dolors-
>>>  >> > >
>>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
>>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
>>is
>>>  >> > > approved.
>>>  >> > >
>>>  >> > > Geoff
>>>  >> > >
>>>  >> > >
>>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>>  >> > >
>>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
>>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
>>place
>>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
>>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
>>planning
>>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
>>session
>>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
>>all
>>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
>>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Thank you,
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Dolors
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> ---------
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
>>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
>>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
>>WG
>>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
>>participation
>>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
>>several
>>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
>>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
>>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
>>the
>>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
>>PAR
>>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
>>>  >> > >>
>>>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>>Pl
>>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>>  >> > >> .
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
>>it
>>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
>>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
>>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
>>the
>>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
>>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
>>have
>>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
>>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> -----
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
>>discussion
>>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
>>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
>>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
>>and
>>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
>>  > >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
>>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
>>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
>>EFM
>>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
>>early
>>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
>>10GBASE-T
>>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
>>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
>>>  >> > >>
>>>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
>>eC
>>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
>>identified.
>>>  >> > >>       See
>>>  >> > >>
>>>
>>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>>Pl
>>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
>>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
>>areas
>>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
>>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
>>tutorials
>>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
>>to
>>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
>>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
>>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
>>organize
>>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
>>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
>><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
>>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
>>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
>>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> No - 0
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
>>>  >> > >>
>>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
>>>  >> > >
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> >
>>>  >
>>>  >Regards,
>>>  >Tony
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Tony

Regards,
Tony





I vote Disapprove.

I don't understand why this is necessary. The action in the motion 
takes effect on March 10, and the Study Group expires on March 14. In 
between, we are all in the same place, and whoever attends is 
eligible to vote. So the effect of the motion is small.

I see that it has one advantage: it frees up Dolors from attending 
the Monday SEC meeting. However, it wouldn't offend me if the chair 
of an ECSG decided to skip an opening SEC meeting for good reason.

I also see one disadvantage: we jump the gun on an important issue 
that the SG was chartered to decide, before they have met at a 
Plenary session to discuss it. I can see that the sentiment has been 
strongly in favor of the switch to 802.1, but I'd prefer to have the 
SG confirm this decision in Dallas.

Overall, I think that the disadvantage of the motion slightly 
outweighs its advantage.

Roger


>Dear SEC,
>
>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
>
>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
>February 21 2PM EST.
>
>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
>
>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
>SECOND: Bob Grow
>
>background material:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
>update
>
>
>>
>>  Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
>>  of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
>>  advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
>>  available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
>>  Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>>
>>  I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>>
>>  "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
>>  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
>>  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>>
>>  I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Tony
>>
>>  At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>
>>  >Dolors -
>>  >
>>  >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
>>  >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
>>  >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
>  > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
>morning
>  > >- I would also prefer this option.
>  > >
>  > >Regards,
>  > >Tony
>  > >
>  > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
>  > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
>  > >>someone to run the session.
>  > >>
>  > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
>project
>  > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
>rules
>  > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
>of
>  > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
>help. It
>  > >>would be my preferred option.
>  > >>
>  > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
>because
>  > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
>and
>>  >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
>session
>>  >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
>I'll
>>  >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
>>  >>decision.
>>  >>
>>  >>Dolors
>  > >>
>>  >>----- Original Message -----
>>  >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
>  > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
>>  >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>>  >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
>>  >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
>and
>>  >>update
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> >
>>  >> >
>>  >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
>>  >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
>>  >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
>>  >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
>>  >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
>>  >> >
>>  >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
>>  >> > toes.
>>  >> >
>>  >> > Howard
>>  >> >
>>  >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>  >> >
>>  >> > > Dolors-
>>  >> > >
>>  >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
>>  >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
>is
>>  >> > > approved.
>>  >> > >
>>  >> > > Geoff
>>  >> > >
>>  >> > >
>>  >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>  >> > >
>>  >> > >> Dear SEC members,
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
>>  >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
>place
>>  >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
>>  >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
>planning
>>  >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
>session
>>  >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
>all
>>  >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
>>  >> > >> respective WG members.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Thank you,
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Dolors
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> ---------
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
>>  >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
>>  >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
>WG
>>  >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
>participation
>>  >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
>several
>>  >> > >> WGs efforts.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
>>  >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
>>  >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
>the
>>  >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
>PAR
>>  >> > >> definition. See work plan at
>>  >> > >>
>>
>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>Pl
>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>  >> > >> .
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
>it
>>  >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
>>  >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
>>  >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
>the
>>  >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
>>  >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
>have
>>  >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
>>  >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> -----
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
>discussion
>>  >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
>>  >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
>>  >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
>and
>>  >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Major decisions made:
>  > >> > >>
>>  >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
>  > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
>>  >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
>EFM
>>  >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
>early
>>  >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
>10GBASE-T
>>  >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
>>  >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
>>  >> > >>
>>
>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
>eC
>>  >>ases_0103.pdf
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
>identified.
>>  >> > >>       See
>>  >> > >>
>>
>>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>Pl
>>  >>an_0103.pdf
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
>>  >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
>areas
>>  >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
>>  >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
>tutorials
>>  >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
>to
>>  >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
>>  >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
>>  >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
>organize
>>  >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
>>  >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
>>  >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
>>  >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
>>  >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Yes - 36
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> No - 0
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>  >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Yes - 26
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Negative - 0
>>  >> > >>
>>  >> > >> Abstain - 12
>>  >> > >
>>  >> >
>>  >> >
>>  >> >
>>  >
>>  >Regards,
>>  >Tony
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Tony
>>
>>




Approve

Matthew Sherman 
Vice Chair, IEEE 802 
Technology Consultant 
Communications Technology Research 
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory 
Room B255, Building 103 
180 Park Avenue 
P.O. Box 971 
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925 
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877 
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:05 PM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below
SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become
a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start
of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the
placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have
the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might
be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can
do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to
become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a
formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and
assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec
meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw
poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too.
But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm
the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session
announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your
proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in
the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting,
including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation
from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with
most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the
major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress
on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning
and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Work
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please
send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title
of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed
to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG
and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in
Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria,
and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and
the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the
location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the
next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located
with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late
May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Usag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSec
Work
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next
plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON
and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com
<mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of
the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>



I vote in the affirmative. I guess that means YES.

Mark 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:05 PM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group


Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>



I also vote in favour of this motion.

Regards,
Tony

At 11:13 12/02/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob wrote:

>I vote in the affirmative. (YEA/APPROVE)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:05 AM
>To: IEEE802
>Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
>Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
>Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
>
>
>
>Dear SEC,
>
>This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
>motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
>802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
>
>The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
>February 21 2PM EST.
>
>Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
>
>MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
>study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
>the  March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
>MOVER: Tony Jeffree
>SECOND: Bob Grow
>
>background material:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
>update
>
>
> >
> > Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
> > of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
> > advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
> > available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> > Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
> >
> > I would therefore like to make the following motion:
> >
> > "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
> > group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> > March 802 Plenary meeting."
> >
> > I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >
> > >Dolors -
> > >
> > >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
> > >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
> > >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
> > >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
>morning
> > >- I would also prefer this option.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> > >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
> > >>someone to run the session.
> > >>
> > >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
>project
> > >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
>rules
> > >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
>of
> > >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
>help. It
> > >>would be my preferred option.
> > >>
> > >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
>because
> > >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
>and
> > >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
>session
> > >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
>I'll
> > >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
> > >>decision.
> > >>
> > >>Dolors
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> > >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> > >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> > >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> > >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
>and
> > >>update
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> > >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> > >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> > >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> > >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> > >> >
> > >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> > >> > toes.
> > >> >
> > >> > Howard
> > >> >
> > >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Dolors-
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> > >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
>is
> > >> > > approved.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Geoff
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
> > >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
>place
> > >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
> > >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
>planning
> > >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
>session
> > >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
>all
> > >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> > >> > >> respective WG members.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Thank you,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Dolors
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> ---------
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> > >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> > >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
>WG
> > >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
>participation
> > >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
>several
> > >> > >> WGs efforts.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
> > >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> > >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
>the
> > >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
>PAR
> > >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> > >> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>Pl
> > >>an_0103.pdf
> > >> > >> .
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
>it
> > >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> > >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> > >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
>the
> > >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
> > >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
>have
> > >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> > >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -----
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
>discussion
> > >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
> > >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
> > >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
>and
> > >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Major decisions made:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
> > >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> > >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
>EFM
> > >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
>early
> > >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
>10GBASE-T
> > >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> > >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> > >> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
>eC
> > >>ases_0103.pdf
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
>identified.
> > >> > >>       See
> > >> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
>Pl
> > >>an_0103.pdf
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
> > >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
>areas
> > >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
> > >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
>tutorials
> > >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
>to
> > >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> > >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> > >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
>organize
> > >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> > >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
><mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> > >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> > >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
> > >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Yes - 36
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> No - 0
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Yes - 26
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Negative - 0
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Abstain - 12
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >

Regards,
Tony





I vote in the affirmative. (YEA/APPROVE)

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:05 AM
To: IEEE802
Cc: Dolors Sala (E-mail)
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group



Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>


Dear SEC,

This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the below SEC
motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.

The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes Friday
February 21 2PM EST.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich
Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC

MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a
study  group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of
the  March 802 Plenary meeting."

MOVER: Tony Jeffree
SECOND: Bob Grow

background material:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement and
update


>
> Paul has suggested (and Dolors agrees) that we might decide the placement
> of the SG ahead of time by means of an Email motion; this would have the
> advantage of allowing more time to discuss over the Ether than might be
> available during the opening SEC meeting in March, and would also free
> Dolors to make best use of what will be a crowded agenda in March.
>
> I would therefore like to make the following motion:
>
> "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will become a study
> group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the start of the
> March 802 Plenary meeting."
>
> I believe that Bob Grow is happy to act as a second.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 08:39 08/02/2003 +0000, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> >Dolors -
> >
> >802.1 clearly needs to formally  confirm the decision, which it can do on
> >Monday afternoon. However, as 802.1 made the offer to the SG to become an
> >802.1 SG at the end of the November meeting, this should be a formality.
> >So, I don't see any problem with moving the SEC decision to Monday
morning
> >- I would also prefer this option.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 01:29 08/02/2003 -0500, Dolors Sala wrote:
> >>Geoff, I do plan to attend the Exec meeting on Monday morning and assign
> >>someone to run the session.
> >>
> >>However, I like Howard's suggestion of changing the placement of the
project
> >>on Monday (instead of Friday) to free me of the exec meeting if the
rules
> >>allow us to do so. The SGs are chartered until the closing exec meeting
of
> >>the following plenary. But if this can be moved to Monday, it would
help. It
> >>would be my preferred option.
> >>
> >>I think the decision can be moved to the beginning of the meeting
because
> >>the opinion of the Link Security members was clear with the straw poll,
and
> >>no further discussion is needed. The poll was done when we were in
session
> >>together with 802.1. So it is representative of 802.1 members too. But
I'll
> >>let Tony comment if he thinks 802.1 needs this meeting to confirm the
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>Dolors
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Howard Frazier" <millardo@dominetsystems.com>
> >>To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> >>Cc: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Link Security Monday morning session announcement
and
> >>update
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since the Link Security Study Group members seem to
> >> > want conduct their work within 802.1, it might
> >> > be appropriate to change the study group from an ECSG
> >> > to an 802.1 SG. If you do this early Monday morning,
> >> > the Dolors won't have to stick around through the SEC meeting.
> >> >
> >> > I appologize if I have just trod heavily on Tony's or Dolor's
> >> > toes.
> >> >
> >> > Howard
> >> >
> >> > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dolors-
> >> > >
> >> > > Who is going to run the Monday morning meeting?
> >> > > You are supposed to be in the Exec until (at least) your proposal
is
> >> > > approved.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > At 05:42 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear SEC members,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security SG discussed the placement of the project in the
> >> > >> first SG meeting on January in Vancouver. The decision was to
place
> >> > >> the project in P802.1. A brief summary of the meeting, including
> >> > >> straw poll numbers, is included at the end of this message.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Based on this decision, we (802.1 and LinkSec) are already
planning
> >> > >> the March meeting together. We are scheduling a Link Security
session
> >> > >> on Monday morning (8:30-10:30am) to encourage participation from
all
> >> > >> WGs by avoiding overlaps with regular WG meetings.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please forward the announcement and information below to your
> >> > >> respective WG members.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dolors
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IEEE802 March 2003 Plenary Meeting
> >> > >> Monday Morning Link Security Session Announcement
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Link Security ECSG is scheduled to meet on Monday Morning
> >> > >> (8:30-10:30am) March 10t. This session does not conflict with most
WG
> >> > >> regular meeting schedule. It is intended to facilitate
participation
> >> > >> from all WG members since the work of this group relates to
several
> >> > >> WGs efforts.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The agenda for this meeting is to educate each other on the major
> >> > >> areas related to this project (e.g EPON, bridging, security),
> >> > >> converge on scope, scenarios and objectives and make progress on
the
> >> > >> work plan including architecture model, project partitioning and
PAR
> >> > >> definition. See work plan at
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >> .
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contributions deadline: March 3rd, 2003 midnight PST
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Submission instructions: To submit your contribution please send
it
> >> > >> by email in pdf format to dolors@ieee.org, dromasca@avaya.com
> >> > >> <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> , and allyn@cisco.com
> >> > >> <mailto:allyn@cisco.com> . In your email please indicate title of
the
> >> > >> presentation, name of the presenter and amount of time needed to
> >> > >> present the material. Also if you are a member of another WG and
have
> >> > >> schedule conflict, please indicate so.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The complete Link Security meeting schedule is posted at:
> >> > >> http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/meetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Summary of Link Security Jan 2003 interim meeting in Vancouver:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The two-days meeting covered the presentations including
discussion
> >> > >> on requirements, architecture model, and PAR and 5 criteria, and
> >> > >> lengthy discussion on scenarios, placement of the project and the
> >> > >> need of traffic analysis. The group also discussed the location
and
> >> > >> dates of the next interim meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Major decisions made:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    1. The SG will recommend to the executive committee in the next
> >> > >>       IEEE802 plenary meeting to place the project in 802.1
> >> > >>    2. The next interim meeting in May will not be co-located with
EFM
> >> > >>       in Korea, but will be in Ottawa hosted by Nortel late May
early
> >> > >>       June and co-located with P802.3 10GBASE-CX4, P802.3
10GBASE-T
> >> > >>       SG, and P802.1.
> >> > >>    3. Developed an initial set of scenarios. See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecUsag
eC
> >>ases_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    4. A work plan for development of project PAR(s) was
identified.
> >> > >>       See
> >> > >>
>
>>http://www.ieee802.org/linksec/Meetings/MeetingsMaterial/Jan03/LinkSecWork
Pl
> >>an_0103.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >>    5. Three technical tutorials will be prepared for next plenary
> >> > >>       meeting to introduce SG participants to the three major
areas
> >> > >>       involved in this project. The areas are Bridging, EPON and
> >> > >>       Security. The volunteers to organize or prepare the
tutorials
> >> > >>       were: Norm Finn ( nfinn@cisco.com <mailto:nfinn@cisco.com> )
to
> >> > >>       prepare the Bridging tutorial, Jonathan Thatcher (
> >> > >>       Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com
> >> > >>       <mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@worldwidepackets.com> ) to
organize
> >> > >>       the EPON tutorial, and Bill McIntosh (
> >> > >>       bmcintosh@fortresstech.com
<mailto:bmcintosh@fortresstech.com>
> >> > >>       ) to prepare the Security tutorial.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>         Summary of Straw Polls
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1. Where should the next LinkSec Interim meeting be held?
> >> > >> Specifically, are you will to go if:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> a. Co-lo with .3 in Seoul - 14
> >> > >>
> >> > >> b. Co-lo with .11 in Singapore - 10
> >> > >>
> >> > >> c. Meet with late may June in Ottawa - 30
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2. Who thinks the approach outlined by Mick for development of the
> >> > >> PAR(s) is a good one?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 36
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 3. Are you in favor of moving this SG group to 802.1?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes - 26
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Negative - 0
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Abstain - 12
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>