Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
Paul,
Fortunately in this case, my "late" change of vote would not have
changed the outcome of the ballot. But I think this incident raises a
very serious question about the conduct of 802 electronic ballots.
It seems clear that the working assumption is that email is essentially
instantaneous. It is not. It is a multi-stage store and forward
process. While the forwarding component is essentially instantaneous,
the storage component has, as you correctly note, unbounded and non
deterministic delay. And as is clear from this incident, the delays can
be considerable.
I will admit that I have often noticed email from various IEEE 802 email
reflectors arriving MANY hours after their initiation date stamps. But
I failed to relate that to the delivery time of email votes on 802 SEC
ballots. Shame on me. This time, it has my attention.
I am not in general willing to accept my vote being rejected because it
was "late" being received even though it was sent hours before the
stated ballot closing time (when corrected for time zone). And I
suggest that others may feel the same way.
First, I believe that the ballot must state clearly what that closing
time means. Is the the closing time for vote transmission (like to
filing of US income tax) or the closing time for vote reception?
Second, given this incident, I believe that we need some formal
allowance for email delivery delay. Possible solutions include the following.
1) Have a minimum time delay between when the ballot "closes" and when
the acceptance of votes closes. Based on this incident, the delay would
need to be at least 8-12 hours.
2) Assuming that emails to a given 802 reflector are queued and
serviced in order, send a "the ballot is closed" email at the stated
ballot closing time and close the reception of votes only after the "the
ballot is closed" email is received back from the reflector.
Thanks,
wlq
Paul Nikolich wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> After inspecting the header, I see that you are correct--IEEE held it for
> more than 4 hours.
>
> At any rate, I must use the timestamp of my machine as the ultimate
> indicator of whether or not the deadline was made.
>
> I do agree it would be worth noting your experience to the SEC so the voters
> can account for the delay (which, unfortunately, is unpredictable).
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Quackenbush" <billq@attglobal.net>
> To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
> Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > Following is the full header from the copy of my vote change that I
> > received back from the 802 SEC reflector. The email was received by
> > "ruebert.ieee.org" 19 seconds after I mailed it. It was then received
> > by "prserv.net" from "ruebert.ieee.org" 4 hours and 36 minutes later.
> > It looks pretty clear that the IEEE was the significant delay.
> >
> > The point I want to make is that folks on the SEC need to know that the
> > IEEE server can take hours to forward emails and that we should not
> > expect or count on fast service.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > wlq
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Received:
> > from ruebert.ieee.org ([140.98.193.10]) by
> > prserv.net (in4) with ESMTP id <2003022121503810401quo7ge>; Fri, 21 Feb
> > 2003 21:50:38 +0000
> > Received:
> > (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org
> > (Switch-2.2.4/Switch-2.2.4) id h1LHEcF21774 for stds-802-sec-resent;
> > Fri, 21
> > Feb 2003 12:14:38 -0500 (EST)
> > Message-ID:
> > <3E565E67.D4C72755@attglobal.net>
> > Date:
> > Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:14:19 -0800
> > From:
> > Bill Quackenbush <billq@attglobal.net>
> > X-Mailer:
> > Mozilla 4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
> > X-Accept-Language:
> > en,pdf
> > MIME-Version:
> > 1.0
> > To:
> > Paul Nikolich <p.nikolich@ieee.org>, IEEE802
> > <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>, "Dolors Sala (E-mail)" <dolors@ieee.org>
> > Subject:
> > Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION:
> > Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to
> > become an 802.1 Study Group
> > References:
> > <030b01c2d2c9$96e95a10$6501a8c0@nave>
> <3E4AF7E1.90E79CF@attglobal.net>
> > Content-Type:
> > text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> > 7bit
> > Sender:
> > owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Precedence:
> > bulk
> > X-Resent-To:
> > Multiple Recipients
> <stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org>
> > X-Listname:
> > stds-802-sec
> > X-Info:
> > [Un]Subscribe requests to
> majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
> > X-Moderator-Address:
> > stds-802-sec-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
> > X-Mozilla-Status:
> > 8011
> > X-Mozilla-Status2:
> > 00000000
> > X-UIDL:
> > 2003022121503810401quo7ge000690
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > This email was sent at 9:14 am PST which is 12:14 pm EST and which is
> > > the time in the time stamp of my quoted message. The closing time for
> > > the ballot was 2 pm EST.
> > >
> > > While my change of vote does not change the outcome of the vote, I am
> > > concerned about the time it took for this email to be delivered. I
> > > would greatly appreciate it if you would look at the full header of my
> > > email and determine where the delay occurred. I suspect that it
> > > occurred at the IEEE. I expect better than a four and a half hour
> > > delivery time for email.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > wlq
> > >
> > > Your email is
> > >
> > > Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Bill--you are 2 hours and 42 minutes too late.
> > > >
> > > > --Paul
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Bill Quackenbush" <billq@attglobal.net>
> > > > To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; "IEEE802"
> > > > <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>; "Dolors Sala (E-mail)" <dolors@ieee.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:14 PM
> > > > Subject: 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 indica
> te
> > > > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >