| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Everyone,
Just a quick update on some SA rules issues. I did attend ProCom and AudCom yesterday specifically to deal with two rules issues:
1) The clarification we requested on draft recirculations (SA SB OM Sect. 5.4.3.2) 2) The issue identified with review of our P&P and it’s impact on PAR acceptance (SA SB OM 5.1.1.1)
On item 1, I presented some of the document Stuart and I put together for the EC meeting on the recirculation topic, along with a smaller document on a suggested change that I believe addresses the issue (See attached). The net result is that it was generally agreed an update to the Standards Board Operating Manual was desirable which would clarify that the most recently circulated draft should be submitted to RevCom. The change I suggested is being combined with some other editorial changes in the same section and will be submitted back to ProCom at the first opportunity. (The current draft of the change is also attached).
The second issue revolved around a new submission process for revised sponsor P&Ps being submitted to AudCom. Once the P&P is in review by AudCom no further PARs can be considered by NesCom until either AudCom formally accepts the updated P&P, or 6 months had passed. Since 802 updates their P&P roughly every 4 months, this promises the potential for a vicious circle where we would never be able to submit new PARs. I presented a short document explaining this to ProCom (see attached), and they indicated the belief that AudCom would not want to look at our rules that often anyway. They then deferred the issue to AudCom, which happened to be meeting right after ProCom.
I brought this issue up at AudCom and the response I got was that AudCom never directly reviews IEEE 802 P&Ps. We are covered under the umbrella of the Computer Society’s Standards Activity Board P&P. We are required to indicate in our P&P that we defer to the CS SAB P&P, but other than that, AudCom could care less what we do. It was indicated that for P&P where AudCom has audit responsibility, when a P&P is revised, a sponsor cannot commence operating under the revised P&P until it is “accepted” by AudCom. The sponsor should operate under the old P&P till that time.
I expressed some concern over the fact that the rules in 5.1.1.1 of the SA SB-OM indicates that all Sponsors should submit revised P&P to AudCom for review, and that AudCom is obligated by those rules to review them. I further expressed that I consider IEEE 802 to be a sponsor as defined by the SB-OM, and that if in fact AudCom did not wish to review IEEE 802 P&P, that perhaps some adjustment needs to be made to the text in that section. AudCom agreed that the text was misleading and took and action to study the situation further. I inquired as to the P&P review procedures within the CS SAB (to which we are subject) and I was informed that in fact our P&P changes are regularly reviewed by the CS SAB, but that unless there is a problem with them, no notification of “acceptance” (or non-acceptance) is provided.
The net result is that our current procedures for updating and maintaining the P&P seem to be acceptable, but the text in SA SB-OM section 5.1.1.1 probably needs to be clarified as to what is meant by a “Sponsor”. Note that while I was there, AudCom did instruct NesCom not to accept PARs from several sponsors, so they are serious about this stuff.
Hope that elucidates everyone. This stuff certainly eludes me at times.
Best Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
|
Suggested Resolution in SBOM 5.4.3.2.ppt
Issues with P&P Review Requirments.ppt