Paul,
I'll come prepare.
Meanwhile, I am available to answer any additional
questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Dolors
404 728-0643
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:48
PM
Subject: [802SEC] ballot FAILED +++ SEC
EMAIL BALLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to
become an 802.1 Study Group
Dear SEC, The
vote tally as of the close of the ballot at 2PM EST Friday February
21 2003 was:
Vote categories:
DIS DNV APP
ABS ----------------------------------------------- 01 Geoff
Thompson DIS 02 Mat
Sherman DIS 03 Buzz
Rigsbee
APP 04 Bob
O'Hara DIS 05
Bill Quackenbush DIS 06 Tony
Jeffree
APP 07 Bob
Grow
APP 08 Stuart
Kerry
DNV 00 Bob
Heile
DNV 10 Roger Marks
DIS 11 Mike
Takefman
APP 12 Carl Stevenson DIS 13
Jim
Lansford
DNV 14 Mark
Klerer
APP
total: -6- -3- -5-
-0- 8 APPROVES required to PASS, 5 APPROVES received, the motion
FAILED.
Dolors please plan to
present a brief (<5 minute) status on the Study Group at the
Monday SEC meeting. I will put the ECSG report agenda item as
early as possible in the agenda. You may leave the SEC meeting
after the report (unless there are objections).
The
ECSG may continue to conduct the ECSG meetings in conjuction with
the 802.1 WG meetings as originally planned.
Please come to the
Friday SEC meeting prepared to make a recommendation on how to proceed with
the SG activities.
Regards, --Paul
Nikolich > ----- Original Message ----- > From:
"Paul Nikolich" < paul.nikolich@att.net> > To: "IEEE802" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org> >
Cc: "Dolors Sala (E-mail)" <dolors@ieee.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:04 PM >
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 > >
> > > > > > >
|