Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to become an 802.1 Study Group
Paul-
I agree with Bill on this one.
The rules that are in place on this point to sending time stamp.
See our Procedure 2:
- Delivery may be assumed if sent by either FAX or e-mail one full
working day prior to the deadline, or if sent by express delivery service
with guaranteed delivery one working day prior to the deadline, or if
sent by US Mail, or Air Mail ten working days prior to the
deadline.
The only delivery systems that I know of that are generally
considered instantaneous are real-time voice and confirmed fax.
Geoff
At 01:47 PM 2/23/2003 -0800, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >