|
Dear SEC,
I agree with Tony's analysis, the motion is not out
of order and we should complete the balloting process.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:24
PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT
+++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an
802.1 Study Group
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
|