Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
I change my vote to DISAPPROVE.
Thanks,
wlq
Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> > >